As context for this post I read an excellent history of atheism called The Twilight of Atheism recently (while I was in Sydney) and I have been mulling it over ever since.

One of the main things that really stands out to me is the the absurdity of the view that there is no meaning in the universe. Dawkins is a strident atheist and makes a fairly loud (though) logically flawed argument for it in The God Delusion essentially claiming that the universe is simply a brute fact. It just is and that's it. For example: "There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference...".

Okay, so it's pretty clear from this that he sees that the universe just is. There is no higher purpose, no morality external to it, to us. I'd be able to accept this is he was just consistent with it, but he is not. In the God Delusion he considers that one of the most vile things a person can do is give their child a religious upbringing. Do you see the problem here? This is a profoundly moral statement. He is expressing a deeply moral view and yet, if he actually adhered to his spoken worldview, what he is saying is actually meaningless.

It's meaningless because there is nothing upon which to base his view. The universe just is, there is "no evil". It literally makes no sense to call something vile if there is no good and evil. It's not even some kind of relativism, he is not simply expressing a personal opinion. According to his stated worldview there is literally no meaning in his moral statements, not in any of them.

He is in an obsurd position, where he denies anything that can give real meaning to his words, and yet he still makes them, loudly and stridently. And, in fact, any worldview that makes the claim that the universe is all there is, is left in the same position.

I read the paper and I see articles loudly proclaiming Israel's moral deficiency in their assault on Gaza; articles written by atheists (I know in a couple of examples that this is true, and guess it in other cases), by secular humanists. How can they declare that Israel is morally bankrupt in it's actions. There can be no morality, not moral statements here.

To quote Kai Nelson, an atheist philsopher: "We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egosist or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasent one. Reflection on it depresses me...Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality."

Nietzsche saw this, as did Satre, Camus, Monod and others, and grappled with it in different, equally contradictory ways. The reality is that if kill God any kind of ethic that allows you to make moral statements about others, to make meaningful moral statements, even about yourself, dies with him/her/it.

As Nietzsche said in The Gay Science:
"God is Dead...And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?"

To take the universe as brute fact, that we are born, we live and then we die, literally makes it all pointless; absurd. If there is no God, then objective right and wrong cannot exist. As Dostoyevsky said, "All things are permitted."

It's a free for all, there is no compelling reason not to simply do as you wish. In fact, the most compelling ethic may well be to be completely selfish. If all you get is your four score and 10, why waste it in altruism? This is not a world I'd like to live in.

It reminds me of a story I heard once, that highlights the central inconsistency of this kind of morally relativistic position. I doubt this is actually true, but it's a good story. It goes that a philosophy professor was teaching a course in ethics. During the course of the year he demonstrated the flaws in moral relativism and all but one of his students rejected it. The guy who didn't remained stridently relativistic. When it came to marking the final essays the student wrote a brilliant defense of relativism, and the professor marked it with an "F". The student, upon getting his essay back, demanded to meet with the professor. He insisted the professor tell him why his essay had been marked so, as he thought it was a good essay. The professor replied: "Did you think it was a good essay? Well, one of the criteria I have for a good essay is that they are not written in red ink (as the essay was) so I gave you an F". The student replied "That's not fair" and the professor said; "Really, but it's my opinion, I think essays written in red are not as good as ones written in black. You are entitled to you opinion, this is mine." And in so doing demonstrated that the student was a moral relatvist, until such point as it impinged negatively on him.

Like I say, I doubt the story is true, but it highlights the central inconsistency that seems to plague writers who claim to hold a to a view that there is no deeper meaning to anything.

I don't think appeals to basic human rights really hild water when given some thought. Basically they suffer from the same problem.

None of this is an argument for the existence of God, just thoughts on the implications of worldviews that deny a transcendant morality (i.e. theism, platonism etc). I am still mulling it all over...

I still haven't finished the God Delusion, although I am significantly further through it. I am finding it an enormously frustrating read. Not becasue I don't agree with him, or even that I am predisposed to disagree with him, I have read other atheist writing and enjoyed and been challenged by it immensely.

I find it frustrating because of Dawkins' style. He has been described as "Darwins Rottwieler" (in a explicit comparison to T.H Huxley who was known as Darwin's Bulldog - and inappropriate comparison in my view). It seems to me that the dog is rabid. It's frustrating because this work could have been an interesting contribution to a long standing debate over the existence of God, instead it is a patchy rant/whine.

Anyway, I was given back my copy of Dawkins' God, written by Alistar McGrath, a prominent philosopher of science. In it there is a great passage where he tackles this very issue, namely the "ferocty with which he (Dawkins) asserts his atheism."

( an extended quote on Dawkin's reasoning process. )

To put it bluntly, Dawkins makes an inference about how to explain the world and then uses that inference to develop logically binding deductions about the existence, or lack thereof, of God.

This is something I have seen over and over again, especially on teh interwebs on sites like Panda's Thumb and respondants to David Heddle's blog He Lives. Essentially there is a confusion whereby some people, theists and atheists both, take physical evidence as absolute confirmation of metaphysical beliefs. Cognitive Psychological research has shown that people tend to seek and interprets evidence that confirms belief(2). So this isn't terribly surprising.

But it is frustrating for the following reasons.

First Dawkins (and others) accuse theists of making this logical error while making it themselves. Most of the skilled theist writers in this debate that I have read are very clear that there arguments are inferential only and thus not logically binding. Most of them seem acutely aware of the difference between physical evidence and metaphysical belief or theory. In fact the recent Intelligent Design writers take pains to point this out. Namely that they are arguing an inference to the best explanation, not a logically necessary deduction. At best they are saying it is eminently rational to be a theist, but that the argument is not logically binding.

There are poor theist writers in this area that make the same mistake and they should be rightly repudiated for it. But so should Dawkins. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I don't normally seriously engage with these writers because they have little influence. Dawkins' unprecendented influence means that it is necessary to engage with his work.

Second, this debate has gone on for centuries and has largely come to a stalemate (with the exception of the Intelligent Design revival based on recent scientific findings, but, as said, this has more modest intentions and does not set out to prove the existence of God). Dawkins rocks along with his lenghty rant and summarily dismisses the collective centuries of thought by specialists in this area with a few hand waves, some burning of straw men and some red faced ranting and presumes to have settled the matter.

The arrogance of the man is unsettling. Dawkins is, or was, a brilliant scientist. He has contributed profoundly to our understanding of evolution and is, or was, a highly respected Zoologist. What he is not, is a philosopher of any ability. To wade into complex philosophical debates and essentially try and shout everyone down jsut comes across as childish (much of the book reads like a schoolboy argument) and churlish.

To make matters worse, Dawkins has roundly tried to demonize philsophers who want to step into a debate that they justifiably see as on their turf. He has claimed of various people that they are not biologists so they shouldn't be getting involved. Even worse, he has personally attacked theist biologists; essentially damning them for their theism and so never having to actually engage with their actual statements.

All in all The God Delusion is a frustrating read simply because it lacks any real depth or character. Is is largely superfluous ranting that contributes little, if any, real value to the existing debate. It saddens me that he has such a wide influence that people will read it, and may be persuaded by it, when it is, in the final analysis, simply a (poor) piece of propaganda.

If people wanted to read good atheist or agnostic literature in this area I'd suggest Anthony Flew or Micheal Ruse as good places to start.

---

(2)Nisbett and Ross: Human Inference: Stategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgement cited in McGrath's Dawkin's God.