by Madeleine KandoChristopher Hitchens died last week. His book 'God is Not Great' was a best-seller and put him on top of the list of a hand-full of famous Atheists that include three of my favorite authors: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Steven Pinker. He was passionate in his attacks on religion and his wit and gift for words made him an incredibly fascinating debater.
He did not shy away from stepping into the lions' den of the Intelligent Design community where he debated people like William Lane Craig, a particularly aggressive theologian. Because of Craig’s eloquently distorted views on issues such as morality and 'scientific' proof of the existence of God, it was not an easy task.
Intelligent Design is based on the following circular argument: Complexity can only be created by design. Biology is complex, therefore biology was created by design. But many complex systems are created by chance, not by design. A good example is my desk where I am typing this essay. It is so complex, in fact, that it takes me hours to find anything at all. And it certainly hasn't gotten that way by design.
Half of Americans do not believe in evolution. They do believe in religious dogma. So there is no lack of ‘believing’ on their part. But they cannot accept the fact that blind chance and the absence of divine purpose is what makes the world go around.
Hitchens was not just an Atheist. He represented a world-view that I share. He was a Secular Humanist and believed that rational thinking is better at explaining the world than religious dogma.
Because, according to Darwin, evolution has no goal or purpose other than reproducing and following the law of the ‘survival of the fittest’, humans chose to give life meaning. This is because that was how they evolved: giving life meaning was an adaptive device by an otherwise purposeless natural selection.
This is an amazing statement, if you really think about it. Life and survival have no purpose. They just ARE. Isn’t that an incredibly liberating idea?
But what about our sense of morality? Creationists like to argue that without God all bets are off. Good and bad are up for grabs and that is why they call unbelievers 'lost souls'. Without God, everyone is at each other's throat. Mayhem, debauchery, Sodom and Gomorrha will be the result.
Socio-biologist Edward O. Wilson talks very clearly on this issue. Our sense of right and wrong, he says, has a biological basis. How this sense of right and wrong is applied depends on which society and culture you live in, but it is a universal human trait handed down through evolution. *
The Creationists have it backwards, you see. Take incest, for example: it is bad for biological reasons, not because it displeases God. In a primitive society the individual, the family and the clan have to adopt moral values to survive. Only when societies become more complex does the idea of a 'law-giving God' come on the scene to conveniently keep the ruling class in power. **
But the ultimate question is not whether religion or science, Theism or Atheism are 'true'. As we become more and more aware of our place in the larger context of things, as we now realize that in order to save our species we are also obligated to save our planet and all that depends on it, we have to figure out our priorities.
Because religion is such an important part of the majority of people's belief system, it would be wiser if we could harness this energy and postpone the debate on the merits of religion and secularism until we have achieved a much more pressing goal: saving life on earth. leave comment here
* Source: "The Biological Basis of Morality" by Edward O. Wilson, Atlantic Monthly.
** Source: "The Science of Good and Evil", by Michael Schermer.
6 comments:
Nice post! I enjoyed reading the Wilson article.
"Our sense of right and wrong, he (Wilson( says, has a biological basis. How this sense of right and wrong is applied depends on which society and culture you live in, but it is a universal human trait handed down through evolution. *
Wilson, by way of the empiricist's reduction, searches for firm ground upon which to deduce the rules that govern the creation of human purposes in evolution, genes, biology, brain science and physics. He finds in his search an ongoing tension between the biologically "material" and immaterial sacred narrative. In the final analysis he assigns the upper hand to the material. What works, works and what doesn't work, doesn't work, but sees that we cannot escape sacred narrative as the means by which meaning is realized.
Wilson get's a little bit right. Our "will to meaning" (Viktor Frankl) emerged in the process of evolution but once realized as meaning creating creatures, our evolution ceases for all intents and purposes. Biologically, Homo sapiens sapiens are today what the were when first realized and the process by which they move forward thereafter, has been driven solely by self-constructed meaning that is inherently purposeful and therefore "revolutionary".
For humans, the biological proposition---to survive and reproduce---is no longer given, as is amply demonstrated throughout history. It is insufficient to pose the problem of the human project as one of empirically choosing to "do what works"---to "do things right". It becomes necessary for us to choose what kind of world we wish to create given our circumstance in the present and then act accordingly--to do those "right things".
The answers to the question of doing right cannot be framed in terms of what is "out there". Rightness is found in our experience in living day in and day out as whole beings immersed in shared meaning. As a method for conducting our lives, empiricism can help us to do things right but it cannot help us to do right things. We must choose right things among ourselves and make what we chose a sacred narrative.
If I understand you correctly, Marc, you agree with Wilson that there is a biological basis for morality, but that now that we are stuck with it, we have to make a conscious effort to live up to our 'moral' status?
The point of the essay was mainly to show that, in my view, morality is not a God-given human trait but a necessary component of being alive, like the need to eat or drink, and that faith has nothing to do with it.
Thank you for your comment.
Please click on the link below. The article “Religiosity in a Multi-Religious World” was published in an Indian Journal, PRAGATI, earlier this month.
Would like knowing what you think of it. Wish all the Kandos a bright and happy new year.
Proshanta
Dear Proshanta:
Your article is superb. It says everything that needs to be said about the science-religion relationship, in a clear, simple and concise fashion.
Of course it takes a sociologist to be able to write so clearly and correctly about this, one who is familiar with the Sociology of Religion, starting with Durkheim, Spencer, et.al.
Scientific Humanism is precisely what I have always been a proponent of. There is a place for faith, of course.
Persons such as the Dalai Lama, and their message, are benign, and they may exert a positive influence.
But freedom of religion, the separation of Church and State, etc. are all sine qua nons.
Hi, Madeleine--well said. Hitchens is one of my personal heroes, and I have followed his work, his life, and his stoic final battle with cancer rather obsessively. I'm sometimes--not often--in disagreement with him, but on the subject of religion and its multifarious flaws, he is just about bullet-proof. He brings logic, eloquence, and massive historic, cultural, and theological data to the frontlines against literalist religionism, and he prevails. I am devasted to think that he can no longer enrich secular humanism with new insights, but those already on record will continue to serve us well. Thanks for the excellent post. Ann
Hello Ann:
Thank you for your positive comment. I too have enjoyed Hitchens' writings.
What I liked the most about him was his passion. That's what made him a formidable opponent as a debater. He immediately recognized b.s. when he saw it and had no tolerance for it.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!