The Roots of Morality Have Nothing to Do with God or Religion - Coursework Example

The Roots of Morality Have Nothing to Do with God or Religion Introduction I. Brief Background or Contextual Information Religious folk have always claimed that a sense of morality can only come from religion or a belief in God, and that secularists lack moral virtue. In effect, they are saying that those who believe in science and secular philosophy are immoral. Atheists, too, must be immoral since religion is a prerequisite to acquiring moral virtues. In his book “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins provides an evolutionary explanation of morality by effectively showing that its foundations have nothing to do with God or religion. He also demonstrates how a sense of morality has developed in all of mankind through the centuries. “The God Delusion” hypothesizes about the roots of morality and of religion and concludes that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between the two. The author argues that he does not believe that religion is the cause of all evil; however, he is also quick to assert that this does not mean that atheists do not ever commit evil acts. He uses Stalin as a case in point. Stalin was an atheist and yet he committed a lot of evil deeds. Dawkins acknowledges that evil is a natural phenomena, the occurrence of which does not originate from religion. Even if religion did not exist, there would still be evil acts being committed by evil-minded individuals. Nevertheless, the author also seems to believe that if all religions were to be eliminated, there would be much less evil in the world. Conversely, there would possibly also be much less good. This is because religion creates goodness in the sense that religious people do tend to be more helpful and devoted to their fellowmen. However, it may also be true that many religious people would probably still continue to dedicate their lives’ works to goodness even if their religious convictions were questioned or proven to be false. In this sense, the quantity of good done might not be significantly reduced. Dawkins provides plenty of convincing information supporting his hypothesis, but he has several shortcomings as well. For example, in his book, Dawkins fails to satisfactorily distinguish between God and religion. He is also unable to thoroughly study or even merely acknowledge the existence of those religions which do not center on the concept of an Almighty God. This study will examine the issue of whether or not religion or God has anything to do with the roots of morality. It will assess Dawkins’s argument and will then attempt to reach a conclusion, using other scholarly material to fortify the claim. II. Focus Attention on Central Theme The central theme of “The God Delusion” and of this discussion is morality and the question of whether or not God and/or religion has anything to do with its conception and development. III. Thesis Statement The roots of morality have nothing to do with God and/or religion. As Richard Dawkins tries to assert in his book “The God Delusion”, humanity is actually being destroyed by religion and religious conviction1. IV. Organization or Structure First, this paper will present Richard Dawkins’ hypothesis, i.e. that the roots of morality have nothing to do with God or religion. Second, this paper will discuss the author’s credibility and his method of argument. It will try to determine whether the author is biased, objective/subjective, prejudiced or fallacious. It will also examine how the author discusses the linkages between science and religion. Third, this paper will examine the central theme and will try to determine whether or not the roots of morality really do have anything to do with God or religion. Fourth, this paper will state the reasons for the conclusion reached, drawing on other scholarly works to support the claim. Finally, this paper will give a possible rejection to that conclusion and will then try to reply to that objection. Atheism In “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins takes a shot at creating a solid argument for atheism. He attempts to refute the concept that God and/or religion provides the basis for morality by banking on science and scholarly reasoning. He maintains that religion is repressive and conflict-ridden, and asserts that only by looking to evolution and scientific study can man really understand the concept and history of morality. According to the author, the foundations of morality are separate and distinct from any religious and/or God-centric dogma. However, he also explains that he does not believe in the notion that religion is the cause of evil. This does not mean, however, that atheism is devoid of sin and wickedness. He gives several examples of atheists who have committed evil deeds to support this statement. According to Dawkins, evilness will continue to be prevalent with or without religion. If all religions were to be eliminated, there would probably be less evil in the world because there would be one less divisive and tyrannical force creating discord among people. He gives examples of religious wars to prove this point. On the other hand, there would probably also be less good in the world because religious conviction does give rise to acts of goodwill. Those who are devoted to their faith are also those who tend to be devoted to helping their fellowmen. However, it is also probably true that if their religious beliefs were to be taken away from them, these people would still continue to commit acts of generosity and kindness towards others. Hence, eliminating religion would probably not cause a drastic decrease in the amount of good done in the world. Richard Dawkins is a man of science, an evolutionary biologist who is also recognized as one of the chief science writers in the field of evolutionary biology. Thus, it follows that he shall naturally try to appeal to science and reason, and attempt to influence those who have been trying to contest the concept of evolution because it poses a threat to their preconceived ideas regarding God, the Bible and Creation. In his book, Dawkins does pounce on these creationists and stoic defenders of the Bible. Nevertheless, he also stresses that overpowering the creationists is less important than overpowering religion. According to him, religion stands for the influence of irrationality, while science stands for rationality2. As the author sees it, religion is the adversary of science, and creationism is just one of the facets of religion that needs to be trounced by men of science and liberalists working together. With his blunt claims about religion and creationism, some may see Dawkins as a crusader. However, the author’s bluntness is never confrontational or demeaning. He is probing and critical but always truthful, driven by concepts and facts instead of emotions, and his straightforwardness is never gratuitous – he always has a point. And his point is that science is what warrants our reverence, not superfluous acquiescence to deceit, meaninglessness and spite for the sake of religion. There are instances, however, wherein the author seems unable to see the other side of the argument. In one chapter, he likens rearing children within a religious household to child abuse. In his conviction that children can grow up to be adults with debilitating fears of hell, he fails to see that even atheists undergo this trauma. It can be argued that atheists actually have it worse – because they have no options. Whereas people of certain religions have the option of heaven or hell, atheists resign themselves to the fact that eventually the self they are enjoying today will be obliterated. Granted, some people will argue that hell is worse than obliteration. Nevertheless, for atheists there is no alternative and the fact that some of them can accept this notion with complete level-headedness is commendable. There are also instances when Dawkins’ argument is faulty. At one point, the religious ethicist concept of “a natural law existing in every man’s heart” is discussed3. The author argues that since this natural law exists in each and every human being, those who have religious convictions must be no better at acting on this law than atheists4. This is true. But what he meant to imply by this statement is that atheists are just as moral as religious folk. This is false. It is merely an assumption or generalized statement and should not necessarily be taken as fact. Dawkins also takes a liberal stance when it comes to religion. Practices such as euthanasia, premarital sex and abortion which are usually frowned upon by religious folk are, according to him, acceptable. It appears that his morality is founded mainly on natural law which, if religious people are to be asked, is inadequate. The moral principles of religion go much further than natural law. But since the author does not acknowledge religious ethics as legitimate, he maintains that he is just as moral or ethical than any religious person. If this is meant to be taken as a personal statement, then it may be considered truthful. But since Dawkins can only assert that atheists and theists are similarly moral by overlooking a primary source of morality, his statement is flawed. Dawkins even admits that the majority of atheists agree with what Pope John Paul II deemed as the “culture of death”5. Thus, atheists can be considered as being less moral than believers. The only valid claim that Dawkins can make regarding this issue is that atheists recognize that they share some morals with theists. According to Dawkins, morals change with the times. As an example, he asserts that before the Second World War, most individualists were disturbingly racist. In the early days, even the most liberal-minded Americans accepted slavery, a practice that is nowadays condemned. If it were not for a haphazard movement started by a group of Christians, slavery might never have been abolished. For the atheists, history is riddled with moral glitches. A secular forward-thinker in the 1930s would have probably been supportive of eugenics and the sterilization of the mentally unwell. These treatments were widely performed in the United States, even though most Christians were vehemently against them. The practices only stopped due to the reaction against reported Nazi policies during the Holocaust. Nevertheless, in the ‘30s, these practices were seen as “progressive” and the religious detractors were seen as backward-looking and reactionary. It can only be assumed that it is only a matter of time before the practices we now consider normal will be deemed morally wrong and outdated as well. This has nothing to do with God or religion. Our moral values adapt themselves to the changing times. Certain aspects of religion are absolute, but morality has proven to be adaptable to change. It must be asserted that religious folk or believers claim that morality is unattainable without religion. They believe that God and/or religion is what defines and imposes our moral values. On the other hand, those with secular beliefs contradict this notion, saying that the point is not that morality cannot exist without religion – it is that morality is feasible independent of religion, and that immorality can also exist even with religion6. Thus, there exist atheists who are moral, as well as theists who behave immorally. This statement in itself shows a fundamental flaw in the concept that religion provides the basis for morality. Another obvious flaw: theists claim that morality is impossible without God, or that Higher Being in the religion who proclaims right from wrong. However, there are morally-advanced societies and individuals whose religions are not God-centric. Hence, the theists’ claim is faulty. Another detail that supports Dawkins’s hypothesis is that our moral virtues are evolving. In fact, such established religions as Christianity and Islam emerged long after the Greeks became aware of and began contemplating on the idea of morality7. Therefore, morality is a result of human evolution8. In particular, scholars have found that morality is a meme. The theory of natural selection seems to work on memes in some way, causing some to become prevalent and others to be abandoned. Other studies have shown that morality is controlled, at least in a small way, by genetics. This has been observed in animals, specifically in insects9. The idea that moral memes are a product of evolution means that experience teaches us what the repercussions of our actions are, and our reactions to these repercussions provide the thrust necessary to create new moral memes. Conclusion The roots of morality have nothing to do with God/and or religion. Morality, like evil, is a natural and human phenomenon, the existence of which does not depend on any religious or God-centered dogma. According to Dawkins, morality can best be explained through scientific examination and fact, particularly through evolutionary science. It is true that morality is not exactly akin to science10. It is not something that, unlike scientific facts, can be examined through empirical investigation. There is no atom of morality, no elementary particle of good or evil11. If intelligent life were ever to become extinct, morality would be extinct as well. However, it is not necessary to stick to this kind of thought, for there are various other ways by which this issue can be examined – as proven by the various scholars who have already studied this problem. God or religion could not have possibly provided the roots for morality. As history has shown, human morality is a product of evolution and it will continue to evolve through time12. Morality is independent from God or religion. Those who believe that is believe that we are bound to obey God’s orders, no matter what those may be, simply because it is our moral obligation to do so. This is problematic because it puts those who believe this notion at the danger of committing “immorality” in acquiescence to God or religion. A possible objection to this conclusion would be regarding the issue of how Dawkins relies on science and reason, instead of force, to refute the influence of religion on morality. It can be said that this appeal would only be effective with people who possess an ardent belief in reason. Those individuals who possess religious conviction in the levels that Dawkins finds demeaning and incapacitating just would not be open to his argument because they are precisely the kind of individuals who have no belief in reason at all. It may be argued that those who are thinking of becoming atheists may be more open to a message that amiably suggests that “maybe you and I both do not need religion in our lives” than one which states that humanity is being ruined by religion and God-centeredness and that they must be eliminated for everyone’s sake. Nevertheless, Dawkins is still able to provide some fairly convincing defense of atheism. Summary Does God and/or religion reign over morality, delineating what is right from what is wrong in agreement to his/its will? Or is morality an attribute that is independent of the religious concepts of what is “moral” and “immoral”? The truth is there has been no acceptable conclusion to these issues. However, according to Richard Dawkins in his book “The God Delusion”, the roots of morality have nothing to do with God and/or religion. This is because (1) evilness will exist with or without religion – and the same goes for morality, (2) moral values adapt with the changing times, and (3) morality can best be explained through science and reason and not by religion which, according to the author, symbolizes the forces of irrationality. 1Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. 2Ibid. 3Ibid. 4Ibid. 5Ibid. 6Zaman, A. (2004). Does Religion Define Morality? 7Ibid. 8Schultz, W. A. (2001). Is God A Criminal? 9Ibid. 10Daylight Atheism. (2006). The Roots of Morality: Refuting Relativism. 11Ibid. 12Lipe, D. L. The Foundations of Morality. Bibliography Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. Daylight Atheism. (2006). The Roots of Morality: Refuting Relativism. Daylight Atheism. Retrieved from on 26 May 2007. Lipe, D. L. The Foundations of Morality. Alabama, USA: Apologetics Press, Inc. Retrieved from < www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Foundations-of-Morality.pdf> on 26 May 2007. Schultz, W.A. (2001). Is God A Criminal?. Retrieved from 26 May 2007. Zaman, A. (2004). Does Religion Define Morality?. Retrieved from and on 26 May 2007. Read More