This is a discussion and dialogue on C. S. Lewis’ classic book, Mere Christianity. It was initiated by Gavin and Nancy. However, it is an open discussion and you are welcome to join in (click on “comments” above). Submitted comments will be approved as quickly as possible. Thank you for engaging with one another in the great discussions of life, and for doing so with gentleness and with respect.
52 Comments on ““Mere Christianity” by C. S. Lewis”
Hello Nancy,
I found a copy of “Mere Christianity” and read much of it. I was surprised that I substantially agreed with everything C. S. Lewis said through the first three chapters and into the fourth. About halfway through the second paragraph of chapter four he says, “You cannot find out which view [materialist or religious] is the right one by science in the ordinary sense.” [p. 22 in my version] I do not know if this statement is true. It might be. A couple sentences later, however, he says, “Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like ‘I pointed the telescope at such and such part of the sky at 2:20 am on January 15 and saw so-and-so,’….” While this is part of science, science makes many statements that are not anything like that. He misunderstands how science works. As a result, I don’t agree with most of his argument in the remainder of the chapter.
Best,
Gavin
Hi Gavin,
Thanks for the email. I am so glad you have agreed to a discussion with me. I was waiting to respond when I had a little more time to reread the part of chapter 4 that you are talking about.
First, I want to establish a foundation. I am glad you got the book and started reading it. I appreciate the effort. My goal here is not to try to talk you out of being an atheist. My goal is to understand how an atheist might think. In the same respect, I hope that you would not try to talk me out of being a Christian. My first questions have to do with your statement that you are an atheist. Can you explain (other than what you say on Brent’s blog) what you mean by that? I have done a google search of atheist and it appears it is a kind of nebulous word. Do you disbelieve that there is a God or god or do you just not believe in the God of Judaism and Christianity?
My next question has to do with what you have written below…What would you then say science is if you don’t agree with what Lewis says? My personal opinion is that science could be characterized as a method of studying (making observations and describing) a phenomenon of the natural world but I agree it goes further in that one may study it at more than one moment in time and add some variables and then try to understand and explain how all the variables effect our understanding of that one phenomenon. From there we make predictions and change variables and then make more observations. The point that Lewis is making is that in regards to deciding whether one believes that the laws of human nature can be explained by science or religion one must recognize that science merely describes, it can not explain everything. There is more to human life than just the physical. Humans have inside information about humanity because we can not only observe it but we are it and there are more ways of “knowing” than observing. What about the last paragraph on page 25 (I think we have the same book)? Would you agree that there is something directing the universe? If not, explain to me how your view of what science is refutes the remainder of his argument in this chapter.
Lastly, here is the original question that I wanted to ask an atheist: When the going gets really tough and life is painful beyond toleration what keeps you motivated to forge on? Do you believe that your life has any meaning and purpose besides that which you give it yourself?
Thanks so much,
Nancy
Nancy,
I’m glad we made contact. Our goals are the same, and I will not try to talk you out of being a Christian.
You are correct that atheist can have some different meanings, and I was a bit reluctant to use the term. Probably it would be most precise to refer to myself as “not a believer.” I would not join a group with a creed saying “there is no God,” because evidence could turn up tomorrow that would change my mind. However, I’ve looked at a tremendous amount of evidence about how the universe works and, based on what I’ve seen so far, I’m convinced that there is no spirit world interacting with our physical world. That means no involved God, no eternal souls, no life force or chi, etc.
You correctly identify what I see wrong with Lewis’ description. Science is not just a list of observations, it also includes ideas that describe patterns of observations. Our world is not a huge collection of unrelated facts, observations are related. This allows us to make predictions which we can then verify with observations. These relationships lead to theories about how things work, and which explain the relationships. These theories make predictions and are subjected to more tests. I don’t understand why he says science can only describe. The kinetic theory of gasses explains why gasses expand when heated. Quantum mechanics explains why the hydrogen spectrum is spaced the way it is. Nuclear physics explains why the Sun is hot. The list is enormous. To use Lewis’ analogy, we have been able to open many of the other letters to get inside, and what we always find is math. So I see many, many letters that we have been able to open. Some of the letters are rather simple and contain math. Others are more complicated, but they also contain math.
Finally, there are a lot of really, really complicated letters that we haven’t figured out yet. Everything in those letters appeared in simpler letters, so these probably contain math too, but we haven’t figured them out yet. Our own brains are the most complicated of all, but again, everything there we’ve seen before. It looks like mathematical principles are directing the universe, not personalities (or a personality).
I will need to respond to your original question latter. It’s after my bed time.
Gavin
Gavin and Nancy, thanks for opening up your discussion to others. It’s been some time since I’ve read Mere Christianity. I’m sure I’ve forgotten most of his arguments and analogies, so I’ll be speaking more from my own point of view rather than reflecting on that of C.S. Lewis.
I think it is dangerous and perhaps a bit ignorant to think that science is the only valid medium through which answers about the universe can come. Yes, science is wonderful for gaining an understanding of nature and natural processes, but there is a vast expanse of understanding that cannot be gained from science no matter how long you study.
A good example (perhaps from C.S. Lewis) is Love. I love my wife with all my heart, but there is no possible way science can begin to describe or explain that. There is no mathematical formula to quantify love, nor any scientific theory that can be used to predict or prove its existence. A scientist can poke a prod at my brain for years and run all kinds of chemical and electrical experiments. He or she may be able to pinpoint the group of brain cells that house the love emotion, but will never be able to examine Love itself.
Similarly, I also believe that science can not prove or disprove the existence of God. Science, no matter how complex the theory or equation, will always be limited to what we humans can observe, measure, and describe. I believe that God and Love and a myriad of other aspects of existence are simply beyond the reach of science. That’s what makes theology and spirituality so difficult.
Everyone,
Thank you for opening up the discussion.
First of all, it sounds like what Gavin described later was “agnosticism” and not atheism. I am glad he desires to find truth and not be ignorant. It sounds like his mind could be changed provided that something or someone was presented something compelling for it to change. Atheism assume that you KNOW ALL SOURCES OF TRUTH. That is, you know God doesn’t exist because you have overturned every rock in the universe. This is not possible, I hope we all would agree.
Another thought about the use of “describing.” If I may point out, there is a big difference in philosophy between “describing” and “prescribing”. This is precisely the difference between what HAPPENS and what we OUGHT to do. Science tells us what happens Naturalistically, but never prescribes what we ought to do. In fact, scientists often miss the fact that there are presuppostions to science (e.g. cause and effect, the scientific method, repeatablity of experiments, etc.). Thus, “all scientists ought to have fair experiments” is a human prescription even by a scientist.
Here is my question…WHERE DO ALL OF THE “OUGHTS” COME FROM? I think considering something behind the natural law is what C.S. Lewis point to with the “moral law.” We must look inside. We must look to the immaterial. What can people not take away from you, like the example of love? If we look deeper, perhaps there we start to find God.
Thank you for joining the discussion Paul and Keith. I really appreciate the input.
Just a couple of thoughts for right now. As I mentioned, I googled atheist and was surprised to find that the definition is perhaps different than I thought. I am not an atheist and probably should not be speaking for them, but I guess I would have to argue with Paul that atheism assumes that they know all sources of truth. It sounds to me like there could be someone who describes him or herself as an atheist who simply has not seen the evidence yet to become a believer in God. It would be important to understand this point when, as a Christian, we are interacting with people who describe themselves as atheists. My assumtion could be that they are disbelievers when actually they are just unbelievers. Do you see the difference? Help me out here Gavin.
Next, yes, I think Lewis is trying to make the point about the oughts in human thinking, behavior, or life. And it is a good point. I would pose that question to Gavin again. You agreed to be our resident atheist in this discussion :). Where would you say that “ought” comes from if not from God. How do you decide what is fair or unfair and perhaps even good or bad behavior.
Another question for Keith, can you give me another example of an aspect of the universe that science cannot explain besides human emotion, conscience etc.
And back to Gavin, you say that it looks like to you that mathmatical principles are guiding the universe, not a personality. Can you explain that and say more about it. I am not a math person and I do not get that.
Also Gavin, please don’t forget my original question about meaning in life when the going gets really rough.
Thanks for the great question. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. My strength and purpose come primarily through my relationships with other people. It is my purpose to help them endure the tough times and celebrate the good times, and in turn I do not hesitate to accept their support and encouragement when I need it. There are some others things as well. For example, I love to study the way the universe works, enough that I earned a Ph.D. in Physics. Studying the workings of our natural world makes me fell very connected to the universe that is our home. Physics is a spiritual discipline for me. I also teach physics, so it is also part of my purpose.
This issue of strength and purpose has had great relevance for me over the past year. On January 3 one of my two older cousins died after a long struggle with breast cancer. Sue was 39 and leaves behind a husband and three children under the age of 8.
She was very religious and asked for everyone to pray for her. I passed that request on to my church friends, but felt I needed to do something else. I flew to Seattle three times, for about a week each, to cook and clean, drive the kids to school, and take her to chemo treatments where we could talk for hours. It was exhausting and wonderful.
I felt a great sense of my purpose and received great strength in being helpful. I was there to support them, and in every quiet moment I was calling my wife, my parents and my friends to weep and get the support I needed.
I took great comfort in knowing my purpose and it also gave me great comfort to know that the cancer had no purpose at all. It wasn’t there to test our faith, or punish somebody or make us stronger. Cancer isn’t part of a plan. It was just cancer, which is a terrible part of our indifferent world. We have to support each other in this world that has no particular interest in supporting us.
Before Christmas it was clear that the end was very near, and Sue’s parents and sister had come to be with her. They were very relieved they learned I was coming the week after Christmas as the sister needed to return to her family and the parents, who had been there almost continuously for eight weeks needed a break. I was the only one staying with the family that week, and I worked from 5am to 11pm most days.
While I was there, Sue died. All of the kids were in bed, and Sue’s husband and I were there with her, holding her hand and stroking her head. It was a unbelievably painful event, one that will be with me forever. For me, it is far easier to deal with this tragedy believing that it is just a tragedy, not a plan.
I know some people get great strength from their belief that God is in charge, but I observed some Christians experiencing tremendous additional pain because they couldn’t make sense of this senseless event or reconcile it with a loving, omnipotent God. I don’t have to answer the why, I just focus on helping and surviving, which is what I did.
Paul said,
This is not an accurate description of atheists. You don’t believe that unicorns exist, I assume. Does that mean that you know all sources of truth and have overturned every rock in the universe? Your definition is used to characterize atheists as arrogant and naive. I appreciate your suggestion that that I am not actually that arrogant and naive, but only by saying I’m not really an atheist. I don’t believe in God in exactly the same way that you don’t believe in unicorns. It isn’t a matter of faith or proof, it’s just a reasonable conclusion based on extensive, but admittedly incomplete, observation.
Keith said, “I love my wife with all my heart, but there is no possible way science can begin to describe or explain that.” Keith, your post is poetic and moving, but wrong. The scientific study of love is a fascinating and productive field. Scientists are learning about love on many levels (behavioral, cognitive, biochemical, etc.), but the field is young and these various aspects still do not fit into a coherent understanding.
We aren’t ever going to have a mathematical formula for love, but we also don’t have a mathematical formula for malaria, which we do understand scientifically. We can understand something without being able to predict everything about it mathematically.
Gavin,
Thanks for answering my questions. I was very touched by your story of your cousin. I myself am not a stranger to suffering and caring for the dying. You see I have lost people very close to me and on top of that, I am a nurse. I have seen and experienced on several occasions what you have gone through this year. I honestly commend you for being available and eager to help your cousin and her family in such a sad and painful time. For some people it is too difficult to face and journey through if there is a way to avoid it.
One thing I must respond to is where you say that you took comfort in knowing that the cancer was not there to make one stronger or punish them etc. (wish I knew how to do the cut and paste thing that you are so masterful at). I know that God does not cause tragedies or hurt us to get a point across. We live in a fallen world and bad things happen in this world.There is also real evil. God has revealed his character to us in his word and in nature and it would not fit with his character to be mean or hurtful. God is love. Someone who IS love would not be capable of giving someone cancer and having them suffer and die to leave a young family with out a mother. But those things and sometimes worse happen in this world. God does promise that he will never leave us or forsake us even in these times. As far as purpose goes, I think where the “pupose” comes in is that God can use any situation or event, even in this fallen world, and create some good and make something beautiful. Even you admitted that your time with your cousin was “exhausting and wonderful”. None of us would ask for that experience but when life gives it out to us, God is there with his loving and merciful character to give us comfort and healing. I know that you may not see it this way but I believe it with all my heart. One thing I have enjoyed is getting to know who this God is. You may have a preconceived notion of who he is from perhaps your childhood or what others have told you. Find out for yourself. You may be very surprised to find out exactly who he is. As you said, it isn’t that you disbelieve he exists, you have just not been given any evidence yet that he does.
And here I promised that I would not try to talk you out of being an atheiest and I am even sounding to myself that I am. Forgive me, I just want for others the peace and comfort of knowing God and being able to rest in his arms when life slaps us in the face.
Now one more thing, can you explain a little bit more about your statement that the world is guided by mathmatical principles. I really don’t understand that. Math is quite hard for me to comprehend and I think of math as a man made way to objectify our subjective realities. For example what is energy? We have made a mathmatical formula to define it so that we can understand it objectively. Mathmatical principles are created in the human mind. How can we say that something we’ve created in our human minds is “guiding” the universe? What do mathmatical principles represent other than concepts created by humans to try to understand their world. We can create a formula for energy but it is not really energy itself. Furthermore, is man and his senses and thought processes able to totally understand energy in the universe when we know that there are limitations to all our senses? For example, we know that dogs hear a wider range of tones than humans are capable of sensing. Is it possible there are more phenomena in the universe that humans are not capable of completely taking in? Our view of the world is limited by what we can sense, but we would have to guess that there is more out there than what we are capable of understanding.
Ok, my brain feels heavy and I have to quit. Thanks for entertaining my questions and please forgive my very limited understanding of the field of study that you are so knowledgable about. I do appreciate the time and effort you have taken to help me understand all of this.
Nancy,
There are two big questions that I have yet to address. One is on the question of where “ought” comes from. The second is on the mathematical nature of the universe. However, before I attack either of them I’m going to pick up some odds and ends. If you want some of my thoughts on the “ought” question, I’ve discussed the issue some in the earlier thread, http://www.brentcunningham.org/?p=159>School Shootings . . . Why?. Those comments spanned seven months and my opinion evolved some during that time, so you might want to start with the last comment rather than the first.
I really appreciate your comments on how you understand the role of God in a world plagued by suffering and on our purpose in that world. Your view is clearly well thought out and brings you great comfort. I don’t get that comfort and I’ve met many Christians who aren’t getting it either, but I still think it’s a wonderful gift for those who get it. My cousin was lucky to have it. I didn’t want to present a caricature of all Christians’ views, just an example of some views that I’ve seen. Thank you for pointing out that Christians can address these issues in ways they find consistent and comforting.
Thank you also for your encouragement in my quest to find out for myself who God is. Let me tell you a bit of what I’ve done. I’ve been very active in church in every stage of my life, from Sunday school, youth group and confirmation, through college and graduate school, to eventually becoming an ordained Elder in the Presbyterian Church. I still attend church regularly, Jesus remains a central character in my life, and I study the Bible for guidance on a regular basis. I know there is much more I could do, but that is what I have done so far.
I am especially moved by your hope that others will find the comfort of knowing God. What I want to emphasize is that I have found great peace and comfort, but I’ve found it in knowing the universe and connecting with others. I’ve found arms to rest in and they aren’t His. I’d like people to find this comfort as well, if they are looking. For those who find His arms, great. When life gets tough I encourage people to take comfort where they can get it.
I’ll address the math issue next, but it won’t be easy.
Hey Guys,
It’s been a busy couple of weeks. I meant to check back here much earlier.
Gavin, I guess you got me on the science of love thing. I had no idea it was a scientific field of study. I can’t begin to imagine how you could make objective empirical observations and perform experiments on love. How interesting. I’ll have to look into that.
You’re out of my league for sure. I won’t pretend I know as much about science as a physicist. I do know that matters of faith are approached completely differently than science. In science you continually test things and prove things wrong and little by little narrow down the possible explanations for what you observe. I can understand from that perspective how difficult it is to just take something someone wrote like the Bible and accept it as is. Much of what’s in the Bible goes against human logic anyway. In fact, I don’t think its possible to convince anyone to be a Christian by debate and rhetoric.
I believe, faith is a matter of the heart and soul, not of the mind so much. God often comes into people’s lives through their experiences. Something happens to them or they witness something miraculous that can’t be explained. Others get a feeling or a burning that won’t go away. And some are lead to do things they would never have done, for reasons beyond understanding, and end up changing the world even if for just one person. I guess these are things science can’t really be used to explain.
Okay one more try. I’m probably beating a dead horse by mentioning the Big Bang theory, but here goes. Lots of scientific models are based on the Big Bang theory, and for most or all of them so far, it makes sense. It makes sense to me and I buy into it myself. But science can never really “prove” it. We can’t go back and watch it happen, or set up an experiment to make it happen again. All we have is deduction. It’s the best wild guess as of yet.
I feel like I’m talking in circles and not getting anywhere, but I feel like I need to share one more thing. I’ve taken a good number of classes in biology, and a few in genetics, and meteorology, and physics and such. However, having been a Christian before going into those classes, whenever I learn something new I’ve always thought, “Wow that’s amazing! So, that’s how God did it!” and never took it as a reason to stop believing. More often than not, a new scientific revelation only strengthend my faith as I learned just how much more complex the universe is than I ever before imagined. There’s no way in my mind it could have all come together the way it is by chance. The odds are just too overwhelming.
Nancy,
The link in my last post ended up looking funny, but it works fine. Sorry about that.
Long ago it was thought that gods moved the planets. Perhaps by watching the movement of the planets we could get an idea of what the gods were up to. The personalities behind the planets’ movements might be revealed with careful study. We learned that the motion of the planets is not governed by personalities, but by simple mathematical rules. Rather than using the motion of the planets to predict the future hear on Earth, we now use math here on Earth to predict the motions of the planets.
I think this story is very indicative of the way our understanding of the universe has been changing for the past few centuries years. The rules that govern the planets are quite simple for anyone comfortable with algebra, and their solution is straightforward for anyone with a descent understanding of calculus. More complicated systems, like thunderstorms are much more difficult to deal with. In fact, no one can predict the behavior of a thunderstorm with much accuracy at all. Does that mean we should conclude that Zeus is in the thunderstorms? I don’t think so. We do know the physics governing thunderstorms (gas laws, fluid dynamics, etc.). These rules are very difficult to deal with and we can’t solve them the way we can for planets, so we can’t make very accurate predictions. One interesting thing is that we can use math to prove that we cannot make accurate predictions.
None the less, I think that the thunderstorms are governed by basic physics, described in the language of mathematics. One reason is that the things we can predict, we get right, like the altitude of the bottom of the thunderhead. In addition everything thunderheads do, even what we can’t predict, is consistent with the physics. Thunderstorms don’t spit out black holes or water bison, they drop a lot of rain, as we’d expect. The final reason is that Thunderstorms are made of things we understand very well: air, water vapor, ice, etc. There isn’t any reason to believe that thunderstorms have some sort of special rules, driven by a personality, that make them behave the way they do. It’s just basic ingredients following basic rules and giving a very complicated result. Again, even though we can’t predict the behavior of the thunderstorm or give a single “thunderstorm equation” we can use the math to show that the behavior will be complicated and unpredictable. Everything holds together.
Let’s look at a metaphorical example. I’ve got three watches, a wind up mechanical watch, a battery powered mechanical watch, and a digital watch. Imagine I were to somehow take them to an 18th century watch smith. What would he make of them? First he looks at the mechanical watch. There have been some innovations in design over the past couple of centuries, so the function of some parts would not be immediately obvious to him. However, with very little poking around he could conclude that the watch was based entirely on mechanical principles that he understood. With further study he might be able to figure out exactly what everything does, but initially he will only determine that there is nothing about the watch beyond his mechanical understanding of how watches work.
When he looks at the battery powered mechanical watch he’ll see some things that look familiar, but others that are totally foreign. The motor will be quite vexing because it spins as if it contains a spring, but it does not. Nothing seems to be pushing it. There are wires, which serve no purpose that he can understand. Finally, there is a battery, which is obviously important but has no mechanical features whatsoever, and opening it reveals an icky past that he wouldn’t let anywhere near one of his finely crafted watches. He will readily conclude that this watch contains some specific pieces that are totally beyond his mechanical understanding.
The digital watch will totally baffle him. There will be nothing about it that fits his mechanical understanding except the clasp.
When I look at a thunderstorm, I can compare my experience to that of the watch maker. I know how air, water and heat behave. I know about electricity. There is nothing in a thunderstorm that I don’t understand, even though I don’t totally understand the thunderstorm. It is like the mechanical watch. It’s complicated and I don’t understand how everything works together, but there’s no Zeus in there, nothing beyond basic physics.
FInally, lets look at the most complicated object ever studied by science: the human brain. We don’t understand how it works, but we do understand how every piece of it works. It is filled with nerve cells and blood vessels. There is some neat and well understood electrochemistry. It’s hooked up in a fabulously complicated way that will take decades to sort out, if it can even be done. Even so, it is like the mechanical watch. It’s based on things we know that behave in ways we understand and can describe with physics and chemistry in the language of mathematics.
There is no analogue of the battery in a human brain. There’s nothing we can point to and say, “this is totally unlike anything we understand.” There would need to be something like that if our brain was animated by a supernatural soul. There would have to be something in there indicating that it isn’t just biochemistry. There isn’t. Every piece is understood, even though the interplay is not. We are like the watch makers looking at the mechanical watch, confident that what we see is built on principles we understand even if the applications and arrangements of those principles will take time to sort out.
That was very long. I didn’t address your questions directly because I thought it better to get the big picture. I’ll look at your questions again to see if I need to address them specifically.
Keith,
I basically agree with everything you say. In fact, let me make one point even more strongly. Science cannot prove that Jimmy Carter was ever President. We can’t go back there and see it, because it’s over. We can’t reproduce his presidency in the lab (nor, I dare say, would we want to). Science doesn’t prove things, it just looks at evidence. There is plenty of evidence that Jimmy was President: photographs, video tape, records of all sorts, and personal recollections.
There is substantially less evidence that Andrew Jackson was ever President. Most of the modern records we have of recent Presidents couldn’t be made back then. Even so, anyone who suggests that Andrew Jackson was never president is entirely ignorant of the relevant history, deluded, lying, or some combination. There is no need to take such a person seriously.
The quantity of evidence for the big bang and for evolution fall, in my estimation, somewhere between the quantities for the Presidencies of Carter and Jackson.
There is some research on religious experience. It appears that what is happening in out-of-body experiences is pretty well understood (spoiler: you don’t actually come out of your body), but it is a pretty new field as well.
One thing I do want comment on is your last two sentences.
Most of it didn’t come together by chance, good catch. There are the four fundamental forces. Gravity plays the staring role at cosmic distances but the electromagnetic and strong forces do their part. (The weak force doesn’t hold anything together.) Then there’s evolution, which is very thorough and methodical and getting rid of bad ideas and trying out new ones. It isn’t deterministic, but it isn’t totally random either. If you fill a jar with rice and shake it, what are the chances that the random motion will find a tighter packing of the rice? Pretty good, actually. Evolution is like that.
I agree that the odds seem too overwhelming, but our guts aren’t very good at picking odds. This has been proven most spectacularly not by science, but by Las Vegas.
Hi,
I just wanted to say what a wonderfull blog this is. It has been very intersting to here all of the thoughts and ideas that have been expressed.
I wanted to add a link for you Gavin. I thought you might be interested in it, it is way over my head, but I remembered your comment about the universe being directed by mathematical principles. So here it is http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/15/feedback-laws-of-nature
Also, I just watched The Privileged Planet, it is fasinating, I highly recommend it to anyone who has yet to see it.
In His love
Dan
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the link. I can’t make heads or tails of either the question or the answer. AiG does not do very good physics, at least in the areas I understand (astrophysics, cosmology, particle physics). I actually had lunch with one of their physicists a few months ago when he was in town. We discussed his cosmological model which allows light from galaxies billions of light years away to reach us in just 6000 years. He had some very unconventional (i.e. wrong) ideas about General Relativity, a subject which he should have mastered if he wanted to do cosmology. I was disappointed.
Correction: The physicist I had lunch with is at the Institute for Creation Research, not AiG. I haven’t had any direct interaction with an AiG physicist. However, I still find AiG’s physics lacking in areas I understand.
Hey Gavin,
No problem, sorry it wasn’t helpfull. Did you finish reading Mere Christianity ?
Gavin,
Though this reaches back to an earlier discussion we had from the blog on God bringing down nations in the Old Testament (5/10/07), I do have a question that relates to this discussion as well (especially Lewis’ first three chapters). In that previous discussion you wrote, “As an atheist who believes himself to be no more than an elaborate, natural arrangement of atoms, I feel a profound fellowship with the cosmos and its other inhabitants. Their well being is of no less significance than my own, and I have no superior source of truth nor special standing with a higher power.”
I’m most interested in your statement about viewing yourself as “no more than an elaborate, natural arrangement of atoms.” Can you comment for me on a statement made by Naturalist, Richard Dawkins in his book, “River Out of Eden. He writes,
“In a universe of blind physical force and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt; other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
Gavin, as I read Dawkins words, his recognition of moral meaninglessness seems to be quite consistent with the idea of the universe containing nothing more that “blind physical force and genetic replication,” or as you put it, “no more than an elaborate, natural arrangement of atoms.” As I understand him, his conclusion seems to follow necessarily from his naturalistic premises. Can you help me see where Dawkins is wrong in his conclusions about the absence of a moral universe?
Brent,
I don’t disagree with Dawkins on this point. The universe has no moral sense, but I do. The universe doesn’t care what happens to me or the people around me, but I do. The universe also isn’t very good at writing poetry. This property I share with the universe, but some other people are quite good.
An elaborate, natural arrangement of atoms is capable of doing things that the universe doesn’t do (except, I suppose, that it can be said that the universe does those things through the elaborate arrangements that are part of it). I feel pain and joy. I understand the world around me well enough to appreciate that I am surrounded by others who experience the same things. Just as I want to pursue my own joy and avoid pain, I recognize that others’ joy and pain is no less real or significant, and therefore I respect their aspirations as well. I’m not getting any help on this from the world beyond humans and social animals. Every non-social thing is indifferent.
ive been trying to ask christions this, none will reply.
so if adam and eve are supposed to be the first people, doesnt that mean there was some severe insest going on?
I assume that you are inquiring about who Adam & Eve’s children married (e.g., Cain). Because the first humans had numerous children, and though the Biblical record doesn’t tell us who Cain was married to, we can assume that he either married a sister or a niece (Gen 4:17). The biblical prohibition against incestuous marriage was given by God during the time of Moses (Lev 18), hundreds of years after Cain.
Though all cultures maintain some social or legal boundaries of sexual relationships between family members (e.g., first cousins vs. second cousins), they each have slight variations. Some societies consider the prohibitions to include only those related by birth while others include those who live in the same household, or by adoption, marriage, or clan.
Some of the reasons why we as Americans have certain laws pertaining to the marriage of blood relations are due to the genetic imperfections which have amassed over time and which frequently cause birth defects.
I hope this helps address your question.
Evolution affects populations and does not require a single couple as the sole ancestor of all humans, so the incest issue doesn’t arise in an understanding of human origins based on scientific evidence.
However, the study of study of mutations in the Y chromosome (passed down only by males) and in mitochondrial DNA (passed only by females) has lead to interesting studies about whether we all have a single male or female common ancestor. I believe the studies suggest that we do, but they weren’t at the same time, nor were they our only ancestors from those times. However, this isn’t my field. To find out more look for “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosomal Adam.”
Hi Gavin,
I have a couple more questions for you….
Would you say that humans are basically good and just do bad things sometimes or would you say that humans are basically bad and sometimes do good things?
When you say that you are no more than an elaborate natural arrangement of atoms, do you believe that humans posess some “special” status in this world or are we just another one of the animals that has evolved to the state where we have intellegence and language?
Nancy,
I don’t have an opinion on the first question. People do some good things and some bad things. Are zebras basically black with some white stripes, or basically white with some black stripes?
Humans have developed language and culture beyond other animals. Is that enough to make us special? I don’t think there is a huge difference between humans and other animals. For example, none of us have souls, but many animals are conscious, intelligent, and have elements of language and culture.
Gavin,
Regarding our interchange in comments #20 & #21 above:
(1) You wrote, “I don’t disagree with Dawkins on this point. The universe has no moral sense, but I do. The universe doesn’t care what happens to me or the people around me, but I do.�
However, Dawkins’ point is that the categories of morality simply do not relate or apply to anything in the universe (that would include humans). For, according to naturalism, humans are nothing more than one particular combination of properties of that universe. Therefore, if the only antecedent cause of humans is the universe itself (and not a moral intelligence), and if the universe has no moral properties, then humans must also not have moral properties.
(2) You also wrote, “Just as I want to pursue my own joy and avoid pain, I recognize that others’ joy and pain is no less real or significant, and therefore I respect their aspirations as well.�
But, Gavin, why should you “respect� another person’s aspirations, feelings, desires, etc? If everything is ultimately going to come crashing down in a heat loss, does what you do in life (whether you help someone or hurt someone) really matter? The answer clearly seems to be “no.� Your actions (for good or evil), or anyone else’s for that matter, are ultimately meaningless, for there are no eternal consequences to them upon you or anyone else. After all, according to naturalism, “you� and “I� will cease to exist after our bodies die. That necessarily makes what we do now ultimately/eternally meaningless or insignificant. I don’t see any way around this problem, and neither have the great philosophers who have held your position (both the ancients like Greek Epicureans, and the modernists like Nietzsche).
Brent,
(1) You claim “…if the universe has no moral properties, then humans must also not have moral properties.” I do not agree. Complex systems have properties that their simple ingredients do not. Hydrogen and oxygen have no hexagonal properties, but snowflakes are hexagonal. Thread cannot be plaid, but fabric can be. Flour, butter and water have no flaky properties, but I can make a flaky pastry with flour, butter and water. Paper and ink have no poetic qualities, but written words can be poetic. The forces and matter that make life possible have no moral properties, but humans are moral creatures. Complicated things have properties that are not carried by their components.
I’m not quite sure why Dawkins keeps coming up. I haven’t read Dawkins and haven’t cited him as an authority in my comments. You don’t agree with Dawkins anyway. The passage you quoted makes no mention of humans, so I have no idea what Dawkins thinks about morality in the human sphere. I therefore can’t defend or refute his position on that point. I can only offer my own position.
(2) You say, “That necessarily makes what we do now ultimately/eternally meaningless or insignificant. I don’t see any way around this problem….” I don’t see any problem. What I do now will not matter in a trillion years, but it does matter now. I can put some Chopin on the stereo or I can drop a bowling ball on my foot. In a million years will anyone care, or even know, which I chose? No. But I care right now, so I’ll chose the Chopin. If I’m short with my wife this morning, will it matter in a hundred years? No. But it matters this morning, so that’s reason to be nice. What is happening now is real. What happens now matters. I try to be nice to the people around me because it matters to them now.
I see the reverse as being true as well. What I do now won’t matter in the end, and what will happen in the end doesn’t matter now.
Don’t misinterpret this as being totally about living in the moment. By “now” I mean the short term compared to the cosmic time scale. Some things I do will matter for many years, so I consider the consequences over that time. However, that time is finite, which makes planning much easier.
Gavin,
In response to point (1):
Yes, but I’m not speaking of physical properties which arise out of the arrangement of other physical entities. Morality is a property of a different category—it is a metaphysical property. How could it, as a metaphysical reality, be brought about by any mere combination of physical substances? This is the rub. And this is what I am saying that both theists as well as consistent naturalists (like Dawkins) realize. One cannot logically be both a naturalist (believing that all things are reducible to the physical), and yet claim that nonphysical entities exist (e.g., souls or objective moral rules).
In response to point (2):
A person will ‘live for the moment’ if he views that his actions will be ultimately meaningless. And if there are no objective moral rules which guide those actions, then all you’re left with is preference. So, you may choose to be kind to your wife, as you said above, or you may choose to be cruel. And while her preference my be the former, you can’t really say (according to your own philosophy of naturism) that either choice has any ultimate meaning. So, what Hitler or Stalin did, in murdering millions of people, is no more significant in the grant scheme of things than the life of Mother Theresa.
Since this post was originally on Lewis’ Mere Christianity, let me invoke a point that he makes on this. He writes, “Remember, we Christians think man lives for ever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or a hellish creature� (Bk 3, Ch 7). Gavin, it seems to me that Christianity offers the most comprehensive explanation of our experience of the world (e.g., in this case, our hardwiring for morality).
Brent,
(1) Right and wrong are no more metaphysical than loud and soft, quick and slow, or solid and liquid. I have no problem with any of these arising out of the physical arrangement of other physical entities.
(2) You claim “A person will ‘live for the moment’ if he views that his actions will be ultimately meaningless.” This is objectively false. There are millions of people who do not believe in an afterlife or the second coming and yet plan for retirement and give to charity. I’m one.
It certainly matters to my wife if I am nice and matters to people if they are slaughtered. It doesn’t have to matter in a million years; it matters right now. Ultimate meaning is a myth; meaning is enough.
Do you understand why I might be a bit angered by your suggestion that I can’t oppose cruelty and genocide? It is needlessly inflammatory. It appears you are trying to shock readers away from understanding atheism rather than present a logical argument against it. Comments connecting my views to Hitler and Stalin are not consistent with the foundation Nancy and I established for this discussion.
Gavin,
I certainly don’t mean to anger you, and I’m not intending to use inflammatory language. However, I am trying to have an honest, principled dialogue and debate. So, I hope that we can continue a spirited conversation while not needlessly offending or attacking one another.
Re: above (1):
I’m a bit puzzled by your response that morality is not “metaphysicalâ€? (above or outside of the physical). If moral rules are physical things, as you’re proposing, please tell me what physical properties they have? We won’t bump into them in the dark. They don’t extend into space. They have no weight. They have no chemical characteristics, etc. We discover them without the aid of our five senses. Gavin, I’ve honestly never encountered anyone who’s suggested that moral rules are anything but metaphysical. They have implication on the physical world, of course, but their nature is purely metaphysical. I can’t even imagine that you’d find any philosophers or ethicists (of any creed or stripe) who will agree with your claim.
Re. above (2):
Though I do believe that the logical outworkings of atheism can be shocking, I am offering, as you asked, “a logical argument against [atheism].” My argument is the classical moral argument. Let me give one version of it in a very basic form:
1. To say there is such a thing as “evil,” presupposes there is such a thing as “good.”
2. To say there is such a thing as “good,” presupposes there is a moral law, on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.
3. To say there is such a thing as a moral law, presupposes there is a moral law giver (whom theists claim to be “God”).
So, Gavin, I didn’t say that an atheist cannot oppose cruelty or genocide. I’m only saying that a person isn’t able to obtain a moral obligation to do so from the worldview of atheism. So, my sharp criticism is against the atheistic worldview when consistently lived out. Now, fortunately, most atheists (who are moral relativists) do not consistently live out their worldview. They do still act as though there were universal moral obligations binding upon all people at all times. But any belief which would support these universal moral obligations is “burrowed capitalâ€? from a theistic worldview.
Brent,
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by metaphysical. I only use moral terms (right and wrong, or good and evil) as adjectives to describes something physical or some action in the physical world. For example, “the boy did a good deed,” or “the man’s actions were evil.”
This is the way I use other adjectives like quick and slow. Is “slow” metaphysical?
(2) Tell me if I am doing this wrong:
1. To say there is such a thing as “solid,” “liquid,” and “gas” presupposes there is a phase law, on the basis of which to differentiate the phases of matter.
2. To say there is such a thing as a phase law presupposes there is a phase law giver.
Have I proven the existence of God from the existence of phases of matter?
My point is that I don’t see the difference between moral properties and other properties that are not considered “metaphysical.” How do I know if a property is metaphysical?
Gavin,
Yes, we categorize the actions of moral agents (e.g., humans) as “moral� and “immoral.� However, this does not make morality physical. Rather, we do so because we believe that the metaphysical category of morality applies appropriately to human beings. Simply because two words function to modify a noun (in their adjectival form, as in your reference to “slow� and “moral�), does not mean that the two things signified by the words are alike in every respect. This is the fallacy which would say, “My brother has ears, an elephant has ears, therefore, my brother must be an elephant.�
Re above (2): You’re confusing two different kinds of “law.� Those which deal with the physical world are descriptive in nature. However, moral laws are not descriptive, simply telling what will happen under fixed circumstances, but prescriptive. They tell us what “ought� to be desired, chosen, or done by a moral agent.
Brent,
I still don’t understand what you mean when you say metaphysical, as in the “metaphysical category of morality.” What is “metaphysical” contributing to that phrase. Is there a metaphysical category of speed, by which we can categorize physical agents as fast or slow? Or is speed not a metaphysical category, but some other sort of category? My opinion is that categories are categories and the word “metaphysical” is meaningless in this situation, but I’d be happy to learn otherwise.
The issue of “ought” has come up a few times. I don’t think it is a problem for atheism. Ignore morality for a moment and consider diet. Some things are nutritious, others are toxic. Even without a “dietary law giver,” I think everyone agrees that we ought to eat nutritious foods and ought not to eat things that are toxic. This “dietary law” is proscriptive, telling us what we ought to do, not what we actually do. However, we don’t need a revelation from some supernatural dietitian to determine what is nutritious and what is toxic, we determine that by studying the physical world. Atheists are not dietary relativists either. A food’s nutritional value is an absolute, not just a matter of opinion.
It doesn’t seem that the existence of an absolute prescriptive law (in this case the one governing diet) necessitates a supernatural law giver.
It think that morality is very similar and also does not require a supernatural law giver. Things which cause joy and reduce suffering are things we should do, just as nutritious foods are foods we should eat. Things which cause suffering and reduce joy are things we should not do, just as toxic items are things we should not eat.
I want to point out that implications of atheism are different from the version of Christian morality promoted on this site. For example, you are going to have a very hard time finding atheists who oppose same sex marriage. However, on most issues, like cruelty and genocide, atheists and believers reach the same conclusions. (Probably because people who hold a theistic world view are using “borrowed capital” from our shared observation of the physical world to ground their morality.)
Gavin, Brent, et. al.,
Sorry I haven’t read all the past posts on this topic… just the last few. One contrast betwen your points of view seems to center around the objective – subjective nature of moral systems held. Brent seems to be a Moral Realist, holding that there are moral truths or principles “out there” which exist objectively and independently of us. God is one natural write-in for the source of such truths. Gavin seems to be a Subjectivist, holding that there are moral truths or principles (e.g. we should reduce suffering) but that these are products of our own making. One frequent source for such a moral system might be the commonalities we share as humans, or our empathy for others paired with a sense of reciprocity. There are many feasible moral systems to choose from which don’t include a divine being, but they all have some difficulties inherent within them. Likewise, with Moral Realism. I’ve been reading Francis Schaeffer’s “He is there and he is not silent” and have a bit of a problem with his view that without God, “there is no meaning for morals” or that morality does not exist without God. Schaeffer states there is, without God, no “real” right or wrong. It seems what he means is there is no objective and independent right/wrong. Fine. Moral systems can be either objective or subjective based. The Subjectivist might argue that the Moral Realist is actually a Subjectivist in disguise, just basing his “objective and independent” moral code on his own subjective belief in God. It seems futile therefore to attempt to reason from morality to God’s existence.
Hi Everyone,
I want you all to know that I had a family emergency and death in California and had to rush out here last week. I will be home tonight. I know that this blog was started by my curiosity with Gavin’s atheism and although you guys have had a very interesting and informative discussion, I don’t want you to think I have abandoned this completely.
Nancy,
I’m so sorry to hear about the death. Was this a family member? I’ll be praying for you and those impacted by this.
Brent
All.
Jim, I don’t think I would consider the moral argument for God’s existence to be “futile.” In fact, I’d guess that it’s one of the most popular and effective arguments today. And it certainly has been in the past as well.
I maintain that one cannot have an objective or fixed moral system without God. As you said, Jim, without God you can possess a moral system which is utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective, or emotive, but you can’t have moral rules which are above human cultures. The best attempt otherwise would be some sort of Aristotelian ethic in which you place the locus of morality within the human person. However, for the evolutionary naturalist, human nature is no more fixed than anything else which is in process in the universe. Therefore, insofar as humanity is in changing, morality must be also. Again, I don’t see any possible way to have moral rules which are right for all people, at all times, and in all places without a Divine Mind. I’m open if anyone can suggest one though?
Brent,
Yes, “arguments” or reasonings for or against the existence of God are necessary, fruitful, and enlightening, but by “futile” I merely meant that they probably will not always lead one to a final, conclusive, and “absolute” understanding of God. They can, of course, be “one piece of the puzzle,” and very worthwhile. What I was alluding to was that to start from a moral system, be it a Realism system, Utilitarian, or a subjective system, etc. and then to try to infer God’s existence seems to be a game with many gaps or wholes, in that one can justify many moral systems that are independent of God. So, God’s existence is irrelevant in those cases. Our knowledge of God is the basis for a theological system of morality. Since God is unchanging, so are moral truths, as you indicate. I agree that the existence of God provides what seems to be the best basis for an objective or fixed moral system, also as you indicate. Without God, there seems to be nothing inherently good about a moral code that is fixed and immutable.
In my reading of Schaeffer, he raises an intersting question that I’d like some input on… (back to cosmology) if the origin of the universe is impersonal, i.e. a la materialism, how does the personal come about? Who here is ready to say that his love for his spouse and children is mere synaptical firings, chemicals, and nothing more? Sounds like Reductionism to me.
Jim, that is the question I have for a naturalist. If someone took some of my cells and cloned them and made another human being, that person would not be me. I am more than my physical body. Anyone who has been to a funeral and seen a loved one in the casket would have to agree that that body is not the totality of that person. And it is not just that the body is not alive anymore. There is more that is gone from the body than just the physical processes. Am I wrong?
Nancy,
Interesting that you would bring up the naturalist… I went to a seminar several weeks ago in which a naturalist spoke basically about replacing God with the natural realm, denying anything supernatural, but allowing for the superhuman. I have read others deny anything but the material or natural realm, but they drift toward speaking of nature as “her” or in other terms which attribute personhood to the material realm. I’m not sure how that works… if the natural or material realm is all there is, from where does the superhuman arise, or once again… if all started in impersonal materialism, where does the personal or personhood come from? I would like to hear an explanation of that. Perhaps the totality is equal to more than the sum of the indivdual components???
Jim,
I, and most scientists I know, don’t think of systems as just the sum of their parts. “More is different” is how it is commonly expressed. A water molecule has no liquid properties. Ten or a hundred water molecules still won’t behave as a liquid. However, a million water molecules can make a liquid. The transition from a few molecules to a liquid is gradual, but dramatic. Once you have trillions of water molecules the molecular nature of the liquid hardly matters at all.
Is liquid water just a collection of water molecules? In a sense, yes. If you removed the water molecules, you’d have nothing left. In another sense, no. Water molecules don’t have to form a liquid, they can also be a gas or a solid. The liquid that they do form, under the right conditions, has properties that molecules do not. Water is wet and slightly viscous. The concepts make no sense for small numbers of water molecules. How can liquid water be wet when water molecules aren’t? “More is different.”
“More is different” also gives us reason to hope that personality arises in a similar way. People are highly organized, unlike water, but the point is that people have many properties (including personality and moral properties) that their components don’t have. I think this is amazing, but not miraculous.
Nancy,
A clone of you would not be an exact duplicate of you. Your genes carry a great deal of information that influences how your body develops, but genes don’t dictate everything. Your memories of your graduation are not encoded in your genes, so a clone of you wouldn’t have those memories. Everything you’ve learned, and most of what you’ve eaten has contributed to who you are. There is no reason a naturalist would expect a clone of you to be you.
When I see a dead person all I see missing is a physical process, so I would say you are wrong. Every method we use for determining if a person is dead or alive involves checking for the action of various physical processes. Maybe I’m missing something, but nobody has explained what it is to me.
Brent,
Let me spell out how I get to a moral system without God.
1. I have a natural feeling that I should pursue things that give me joy and should avoid things that cause me to suffer.
2. However, I know from my naturalist understanding of the world that the future is as real as the present. Therefore, when I decide what I should do, I must consider the consequences for the future as well as the present. I do not live just for the moment.
3. Also from my naturalist view I see that others have desires and aversions and those are as real as mine. Therefore, when I decide what I should do I must consider the consequences for others as well as for myself (for the future and the present). I do not live just for myself.
This atheist approach is going to generate basically the same sorts of rules that form the foundation of theistic moral codes. I don’t see the benefit of getting God involved. In fact, when I was a believer I didn’t see God as being responsible for the rules. It was wrong to hit my sister not because it hurt God, but because it hurt my sister. God was hurt too, but only because my sister was. God didn’t make hitting my sister wrong, my sister did. So without God I have the same view that hitting my sister is wrong.
Gavin,
Analogies illustrate a point or issue, but do not explain the point or issue. Analogies all fall short in that regard. Just because physical properties have certain characteristics, this does not necessarily mean that physical properties and characteristics are all that exists, ruling out other types of properties or characteristics, e.g. supernatural. If, by your definition, you start the debate by ruling out anything other than the natural as existent, then all debate and thought regarding the supernatural is precluded… but that has no bearing on its actual existence. What are the arguments themselves for the non-existence of anything supernatural, other than analogies? Reductionism, or the attempt to explain an entity based only on its most simplistic components, leaving out other properties and characteristics because they don’t fit one’s preconceived expectations also fall short of a satisfactory explanation. Are you ready to say your wife and children (if you are married and a parent) are nothing but a collection of synapses, molecules, and physical processes?
I am in agreement with you regarding the possibility of moral systems without the inclusion of God or any supernatural being. There are many such moral systems in place today. While there are difficulties with some inconsistencies and logical conclusions of such systems, these are also present in our understandings of theistic-based moral systems, as well. It seems that while logic is a great tool for man to employ, our use of it is less than perfect. If this were not so, the many philosopohical and moral issues investigated by the Greek/Roman philosophers, and those before them, would be resolved by now… but they have not; we still grapple with them. Could this inability of man to deal with such issues relying only on his own abilities, prowess, and resources, be a clue regarding the true nature of man?
Also Gavin, as a newcomer to this blog, thanks for your (and others’) undertaking of a sincere investigation into these very interesting questions!
Fascinating discussion! Thank you all for the time and thought you’ve put into writing here.
Gavin, I thought your analogy of the diet-not-necessarily-leading-to-a-dietary-lawgiver was very well-placed. You said
“I think everyone agrees that we ought to eat nutritious foods and ought not to eat things that are toxic.”
and from that we see that there is a standard that we’ve somehow all come to agree upon without having to have an outside, absolute standard-giver.
It seems to me, though, that what is implicit in the analogy is the goal. We can all agree that eating nutritious foods and not toxic ones is better if we all have the same goal of living longer, healthier lives. If our goal is to party hearty and die young, then we don’t need to agree that eating nutritious foods is “better.”
Carry the analogy to morality: what is the common goal that leads us all to live for the cumulative, cultural good, or happiness? And why should we care? I’m not arguing whether or not we do, as it’s obvious we do care, I’m wondering why?
Would your answer be that the goal is a better society for us and for our children? What if I’m a single guy with no family left, why not look just for what makes me happy? Is better defined only by general collective happiness? What if a very large portion of society would be happier through the elimination of a small, particularly bothersome portion of the society?
Thanks for your consideration of these questions. As you can tell, I’m one who thinks that there can be morality with no acknowledgement of God, but it doesn’t seem to make sense.
Gavin,
Regarding your comments from July 26th:
You wrote in your 3-step explanation of your moral system (specifically point #1) that the way in which you make moral decisions is based upon your “feelings.� However, this seems problematic. In some cultures people love their neighbors, in other cultures they eat them—both are done on the basis of feeling. Surely, weighty moral issues cannot be decided on the basis of “feelings,� can they? And further, are your feelings always consistent or accurate?
In point #3 you also wrote that because the “desires and aversions� of others are “as real as [yours],� that you have a moral obligation to respect them. I don’t see how a moral obligation which is binding upon you follows from the mere existence of another person’s desire or aversion. You still haven’t explained WHY any person OUGHT to act a certain way toward another person, regardless of their feelings. Gavin, as you can imagine, many of our moral obligations require us to act, not in accordance with our feelings (e.g., the desire of self-preservation), but in opposition to them (e.g., self-sacrifice).
I hope you don’t hear me saying that I don’t believe atheists to be moral people. I’m simply claiming that they can’t intellectually offer any reasons why I or anyone else ought to act, think, or desire within certain moral boundaries. This is way I called the “moral obligations� of an atheist “burrowed capital� from theism.
Brent,
[Warning: I am on an unfamilliar keyboard layout with spellchecking. The results could be alarming.]
I’m not familliar with cultures where poepe eat their neighbors, so I don’t know if they do it on the basis of feelings. I doubt that they do, actually.
I don’t think my argument for my sort of moral argument is morally rigorous, but I find it persuasive, as do some other atheist I know. The argumnt against it seems to be the “but WHY?” argument that can be used forever in any situation but pure math. Is Christain morality immune to this attack? (E.g. but why should I behave the way God wants me to.)
Jim,
I’m not a reductionist in the sense that you describe. That was the first point of my previous post.
I do not rule out the super-natural before I look at the evidence. I think the evidence rules out the super-natural. But we are not discussing that here. I’m just trying to explain how someone who does not believe in the supernatural sees the world and morality.
I’d like to add a bit to the existence of theistically-deprived moral systems and how they might arise. One argument seems to be that without God there is no basis or reason for morality. As previously stated, there are many existing moral systems that do not include God. They serve well as foundations for morality, although there are some difficulties inherent within them, as is usually the case in philosophical systems. I’d like to outline only two theoretical approaches to such systems, or more accurately, two differing explanations for how we come to morality without God:
1.) Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Gibb’s have written on developmental stages of morality formation in children, similar to the stages of development outlined by Piaget years ago. The basic tenet is that there is a step-by-step development of increasing sophistication in cognitive, affective (feeling), and socialization stages which lead from the initial centration (self-centeredness) of infants to decentration through the development of A.) empathy (ability to feel in or with another’s emotion, or an affective response to another’s situation) and B.) perspective-taking or being able to see another’s perspective or position. These develop through socialization and more complex cognitive capabilities with maturation. Reciprocity also is involved as an appreciation of concepts such as equality and reversal of roles. A child comes from his initial absorption of what is spatially and temporally in front of him, from knowing what he wants and desires for himself, to a realization that others also have feelings, wants, desires, etc. He becomes able to put himself in their position and empathize, realizing that just as he wants and desires to be treated justly, etc., others do also. Reciprocity allows for his realization that just as other’s just treatment of him is “good”, likewise his just treatment of others is part of the same system of human interaction. There are additional stages and many complexities within this process, with God being included or not, and it is not always successful. Motivation for being moral is basically provided by our appreciation of empathy and perspective-taking. It seems plausible to reflect on one’s own life, or that of the God-deficient Humanist, and see that morality can develop in this fashion. A book I would recommend regarding these developmental theories is “Moral Development and Reality: Beyond the Theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman,” by John C. Gibbs.
2. Another theory (Blasi) emphasizes the role of the self in morality and basically states that moral action is motivated by a desire to maintain a view of one’s moral self. This happens by:
A. the agent comes to understand what the moral norms are
B. the agent realizes that it is he who is responsible to perform the moral act in a given situation
C. the agent includes a view of himself as being moral within his self-concept. He attempts to minimize any dissonace or conflict between the moral norms and his self concept by acting out the moral norm or changing his self concept.
D. He also attempts to inhibity any contrary inclinations.
It also seems plausible here to appreciate that we act out moral norms in order to maintain our view of ourself as a moral, good, etc. person. ( a good reading recommendation regarding this model of morality is “Moral Psychology,” by Daniel Lapsley.) These are only two of the many explanations for our moral behavior without relying on any inclusion of a deity. They simply give theoretical explanations for how we come to act morally. They describe how we operate psychologically. These explanations do not preclude God, and it seems probable that many of these explanations could be operating concurrently. They obviously give explanations of different aspects of our morality, or from different perspectives. They are not mutually exclusive. A reading recommendation for a Christian view of morals, or ethics, (which I have just started) is “The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics,”, edited by Robin Gill. The next question might be how do we come to operate this way? Do we operate this way because it has provided us some increased evolutionary advantage, or because God has created us to operate this way, or both (or neither)?
Jim,
Thank you for that very interesting summary. I’m glad to see some specific examples of deity free morality. I’m comfortable with my own picture, but I’m not a philosopher, so a rather simple system meets my day-to-day needs, but it is interesting to see where philosophers go with this idea.
Bud,
I think happiness is the goal, both in the case of food and nutrition. I don’t think we need to ask why we want to be happy. We just do. I think that evolution has provided happiness as a way of providing useful feedback about whether we are taking good care of our selves. (e.g. hunger doesn’t make you happy), but I also believe that this tool needs doesn’t operate very well without careful reasoning.
To take the nutrition example, I don’t argue that the goal is to live a long healthy life, or to party hard and die young. Both of these choices will produce happiness and sorrow in different ways. In most cases the party option ignores the reality of the future, striving for a little happiness now at the cost of great sorrow latter. However, someone who has an incurable disease might be wise to have desert first. The difference between living a long healthy life and living a short party-filled one is not a difference in goals, it is a difference in strategy. I thing that generally the latter strategy is a poor one.
I do not have suggestions for how this view should be applied to larger societal questions. That is difficult with any moral system, including theistic systems. My point is that you can have a morality without God that doesn’t lead to a live-for-the-moment selfish hedonism, which some people seem to think is the only consistent position for an atheist.
All,
There have been a couple comments that I haven’t treated as well as I’d like about naturalism as a starting point for understanding the world. It has become quite popular among believes to assert that scientists take naturalism as a given before the consider the evidence, thereby prejudicing their conclusions. In some cases this is accurate. Many scientists and believers have argued that questions about the existence of God or the nature of the soul are beyond the reach of science. Since these things are supernatural, experiments and observation are powerless to describe them.
Other scientists and believers think this is rubbish. If God is active in the world, we should see some evidence. On the believing side this position is advocated by intelligent design proponents, creation scientists, the new age quantum woo community, Reasons to Believe and others. This is also the position of most atheists, although they obviously conclude that the evidence does not support belief in the supernatural. I am in this last group.
Since I think that looking at the world is a good way to figure out how it works, I think that experiment and observation are perfect tools for answering questions like, “Is there a personality in charge of the universe?” and “what happens to us after we die?” I see no reason to rule out any answer to these questions before looking at the evidence. Maybe when die we go to live some happy place where the creator can finally explain quantum gravity to me. That would be wonderful, but what evidence is there that it is true? I don’t see any, so I’m going to guess that it isn’t going to happen. Maybe we are reincarnated as somebody else? Again, no good evidence, so I’m guessing not.
I find it interesting that both the faith and scientific communities are divided into these two camps. It is not correct to assume that anyone who believes in naturalism does so because they started there. I was a believer for a long time, but eventually I concluded that I had to either accept what I observed in the universe or deny it. I accepted it and became an atheist.
Gavin,
You present a number of good points to be considered. I’m wondering about the element of faith (in a deity) and how that fits in with a true picture of reality. Is it possible to know something, not from objective observation via the scientific method, but rather from something other, i.e. faith (the unseen). Of course, whatever (if anything) could be known through faith, it would seem that it certainly could not contradict objective, observable, “scientific” facts and still be true. I realize that opens the door to all sorts of good questions such as how we come to “know” by faith, as well as the difficulties with issues such as knowing there is a Santa Claus because of faith in one’s parents, etc. Is faith a valid justification for truth claims, and if so what are the limits or boundaries… there have to be other components, it would seem. I’m eager to hear (read) your take on this.
Also, one other brief point… in your comments regarding happiness as being the goal of life. What about life as meaningful, rather than life as happiness? There’s often a huge difference between having a happy life and a meaningful life (which may or may not be happy)?
Jim,
I can imagine a world where people have a source of knowledge that is separate from observation, like faith or revelation. I can also imagine a world where people think they have such a source of knowledge, but actually don’t. How could you tell the difference? I can see two ways: by confirming this special knowledge with subsequent observations or by checking that the special knowledge is independent of the source. The fist way is the most convincing, and the evidence is pretty disappointing. Prayer, revelation, and prophesy do not seem to produce better predictions than educated guesses. The second method has also produced disappointing results. The incredible diversity of religious doctrines professed by sincere and thoughtful people suggests that these doctrines do not connect to a universal objective truth. If a majority of the people claiming to have the one true way were claiming the same true way, I’d be a lot more inclined to pay attention.
Your comment about meaning is very thought provoking. For me bringing happiness to others is meaningful, so I don’t see the ideas of meaning and happiness as being in conflict. I will think about that more.
Hi to all,
I am really enjoying the discussion and have learned so much from everyone. Gavin, as you know my friend and I have moved on to a new book called “Hearing God” by a philosophy professor at the University of Southern California named Dallas Willard. Have any of the others of you read this? Although this discussion is about ideas from “Mere Christianity”, I would like to address something I read in this week’s chapter of our current book. It assumes that there is a God, so there is a different focus here.
Willard asks the question, “Does God always have to go through physical substance to communicate with us?” He maintains that ” not all of reality involves space and that too often our faith may fall victim to our mind’s tendency to spatialize everything.” That made me think of you Gavin. When I talk to you I must make a sound from my vocal cords that then goes through the air and reaches your eardrums, which makes you think about something and then back and forth. But because God is not confined to the physical world he is not confined to this method of communication. Scripture tells us that it is “in him” that we “live and move and have our being”. Normally I would not use scripture in a discussion that included an atheist because they might find it meaningless, but Gavin has already said that he reads the Bible for guidance and that Jesus remains a central character in his life.
I would like to get other’s take on this. Another quote from the book that made me stop and think was, “Perhaps we do not hear the voice (of God) because we do not expect to hear it. Then again, perhaps we do not expect it because we know that we fully intend to run our lives on our own and have never seriously considered anything else.”
I also found a quote from Blaise Pascal in the book that pretty much addresses the original question I had for you Gavin. It just states it much clearer than how I was saying it. “When I see the blind and wretched state of man, when I survey the whole universe in its dumbness and man left to himself with no light, as though lost in this corner of the universe, without knowing who put him there, what he has come to do, what will become of him when he dies, incapable of knowing anything, I am moved to terror, like a man transported in his sleep to some terrifying desert island, who wakes up quite lost and with no means of escape. Then I marvel that so wretched a state does not drive people to despair.
I see other people around me, made like myself. I ask them if the are any better informed than I, and they say they are not. Then these lost and wretched creatures look around and find some attractive objects to which they become addicted and attached. For my part I have never been able to form such attachments, and considering how very likely it is that there exists something besides what I can see, I have tried to find out whether God has left any traces of himself.” Willard sees those traces of God that have always been obvious to the earnest seeker as ” the purposeful order that appears within nature and history as well as the purposeful interventions that seem to show up in history and in our individual lives.”
I would love some input on these ideas. Thanks to all of you for letting me tap into those great minds and hearts that you possess.
Nancy,
Blaise Pascal is a afvorite of many, including me. One of the main reasons for my faith is that, to me, it is the best explanation of the human condition that I have found. Pascal decsribes this repeatedly in his writings. I also see no reason to restirct what exists to a material realm, since I have personally repeatedly experienced reality on spiritual in other domains which I just cannot explain as well under material properties only. Faith is something non-material, of no physical substance, that I have experienced and therefore accept its existence. The materialist might say I’m just deluding myself; but after years of consideration and searching for a resolution, I am not able to ascribe it all to brain chemicals and synapses, psychopathologies and unmet childhood needs, etc. That doesn’t correspond to my direct experience, nor to that of many others. So, it seems that neither God nor I have to go through the physical substance realm or domain to communicate.