In his book "River Out Of Eden", Richard Dawkins wrote: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" (p.155. Emphasis in blue added)Let's to critically examine the above quote and its ethical implications:
1)If, at the bottom, there is not such thing as the "good" or the "evil", then the title of Dawkins' work "The root of all evil" is contradictory with Dawkins' worldview, in addition of being misleading and false; since there is not evil at all.
2)The above implies too that objective moral values don't exist. There can't be objective moral values in an universe that objectively lack (in the bottom) of such values (remember that for Dawkins, the universe shows nothing but blind, pitiless indifference)
3)The above implies moral subjetctivism and relativism, that view that moral values are relative to persons, society or other contingent (not absolute) thing or phenomenon. Dawkins has explicitly defended this view: "Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society" (A Devil’s Chaplain, p.34)
Dawkins is correct that science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. But it doesn't follow that "that is a matter for individuals and for society", unless that objective values don't exist. In the latter case, then only individuals (who have different beliefs) and societies (which have different cultures and values) can "decide" what's ethical or not.
On the other hand, if what's ethical is just a matter of individuals and societies, then individuals and societies promoting bigotry and persecution against atheists should be accepted too (because they're deciding, arbitrarily, what's ethical for them).
4)If objective moral values don't exist, and the ethical questions are a matter of individuals and society, then how does Dawkins know that religion is bad or the "root of all evil"? If it's only a matter of individuals, then the religious individuals' belief than religion is good is morally equivalent to Dawkins' rejection of it (because religious individuals have the same right to decide what's ethical or not).
Dawkins can not defend rationally his own moral position, because it depends in his personal opinion alone (not on an absolute and objective standard). In fact, Dawkins has conceded it too in this interview: "Now, if you then ask me where I get my 'ought' statements from, that's a more difficult question. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan"
Note that if Dawkins's atheism is right, and moral relativism and subjectivism implied by atheism is correct, then saying that "killing people is wrong" is not a defensible statement (at least, no one such a defensible one as a factual one. The reason is that for Dawkins, moral statements are NOT factual, because they don't refer to anything objective).
The implication of Dawkins' view is astonishing. Consider the following moral claims:
-Killing atheists for fun is good
-Raping atheists just for fun and entertaiment is good
-Promotion and active persecution, discrimination and bigotry against atheists and secular humanists is good.
-Destrying science and promoting ignorance is good.
Do you agree with the above moral claims? If you're sane, probably your answer is NO (you probably will say that the above moral claims are objectively false and wrong, not just a matter of fashion, cultural indoctrination or subjective opinion). But if Dawkins' atheism is right, then the above moral claims are not objectively false nor wrong (because, remember, at the bottom the "evil and the good" don't exist at all; at most, they're ethical questions which are just a matter of opinion of individuals and societies)
Also, if ethical questions are a matter of society, then the religious values of society (like in U.S.) should rule and be respected as correct (since that society has chosen these values as the correct ones). So, why to substitute society's religious values with the (anti) values of secular humanism, the latter shared only by a very small minority, distrusted by most members of U.S. society?
Dawkins is EXPLICIT in his moral relativism and his intellectual unability to offer a rational justification for moral decisions and beliefs: "I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, "Well, in this society you can't get away with it" and call the police"
What amazing foundation for morality is offered by Dawkins' atheistic worldview!
5)If moral values are relative, then "life" is not an absolute value. It implies that murder people may be ethically "right" in certain circunstances (according to the contingent, subjetive and arbitrary criteria of "individuals" and "society"). Dawkins has conceded it too in the same interview: "The second of those statements is true, I can tell you why it's true, I can bore you to death telling you why it's true. It's definitely true. The statement 'killing people is wrong', to me, is not of that character. I would be quite open to persuasion that killing people is right in some circumstances"
Note that Dawkins' moral theory explicitly justify, potentially and according to purely arbitrary criteria (because not objective and absolute standards of value exist), cases of murder.
6)If moral values are relative, then pornography, paedophilia, infanticide, abortion, zoophilia and other sexual pervertions aren't intrinsically wrong or bad. It explains why secular humanists are receptive and tolerant (and in many cases endorse) these behaviours or practiques (but at the same time, they're extremely intolerant and hostile of religion, spirituality and scientific research into parapsychological phenomena, suppressin and discrediting serious efforts of research through the so-called "organized skepticism").
You can see the intrinsic irrationality, negativity and dishonesty of the worldview of metaphysical naturalism and secular humanism. It's a purely negative, anti-religious philosophy; but it's intrinsically immoral and potentially dangerous for society and the sanity of individuals.
3)The above implies moral subjetctivism and relativism, that view that moral values are relative to persons, society or other contingent (not absolute) thing or phenomenon. Dawkins has explicitly defended this view: "Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society" (A Devil’s Chaplain, p.34)
Dawkins is correct that science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. But it doesn't follow that "that is a matter for individuals and for society", unless that objective values don't exist. In the latter case, then only individuals (who have different beliefs) and societies (which have different cultures and values) can "decide" what's ethical or not.
On the other hand, if what's ethical is just a matter of individuals and societies, then individuals and societies promoting bigotry and persecution against atheists should be accepted too (because they're deciding, arbitrarily, what's ethical for them).
4)If objective moral values don't exist, and the ethical questions are a matter of individuals and society, then how does Dawkins know that religion is bad or the "root of all evil"? If it's only a matter of individuals, then the religious individuals' belief than religion is good is morally equivalent to Dawkins' rejection of it (because religious individuals have the same right to decide what's ethical or not).
Dawkins can not defend rationally his own moral position, because it depends in his personal opinion alone (not on an absolute and objective standard). In fact, Dawkins has conceded it too in this interview: "Now, if you then ask me where I get my 'ought' statements from, that's a more difficult question. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan"
Note that if Dawkins's atheism is right, and moral relativism and subjectivism implied by atheism is correct, then saying that "killing people is wrong" is not a defensible statement (at least, no one such a defensible one as a factual one. The reason is that for Dawkins, moral statements are NOT factual, because they don't refer to anything objective).
The implication of Dawkins' view is astonishing. Consider the following moral claims:
-Killing atheists for fun is good
-Raping atheists just for fun and entertaiment is good
-Promotion and active persecution, discrimination and bigotry against atheists and secular humanists is good.
-Destrying science and promoting ignorance is good.
Do you agree with the above moral claims? If you're sane, probably your answer is NO (you probably will say that the above moral claims are objectively false and wrong, not just a matter of fashion, cultural indoctrination or subjective opinion). But if Dawkins' atheism is right, then the above moral claims are not objectively false nor wrong (because, remember, at the bottom the "evil and the good" don't exist at all; at most, they're ethical questions which are just a matter of opinion of individuals and societies)
Also, if ethical questions are a matter of society, then the religious values of society (like in U.S.) should rule and be respected as correct (since that society has chosen these values as the correct ones). So, why to substitute society's religious values with the (anti) values of secular humanism, the latter shared only by a very small minority, distrusted by most members of U.S. society?
Dawkins is EXPLICIT in his moral relativism and his intellectual unability to offer a rational justification for moral decisions and beliefs: "I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, "Well, in this society you can't get away with it" and call the police"
What amazing foundation for morality is offered by Dawkins' atheistic worldview!
5)If moral values are relative, then "life" is not an absolute value. It implies that murder people may be ethically "right" in certain circunstances (according to the contingent, subjetive and arbitrary criteria of "individuals" and "society"). Dawkins has conceded it too in the same interview: "The second of those statements is true, I can tell you why it's true, I can bore you to death telling you why it's true. It's definitely true. The statement 'killing people is wrong', to me, is not of that character. I would be quite open to persuasion that killing people is right in some circumstances"
Note that Dawkins' moral theory explicitly justify, potentially and according to purely arbitrary criteria (because not objective and absolute standards of value exist), cases of murder.
6)If moral values are relative, then pornography, paedophilia, infanticide, abortion, zoophilia and other sexual pervertions aren't intrinsically wrong or bad. It explains why secular humanists are receptive and tolerant (and in many cases endorse) these behaviours or practiques (but at the same time, they're extremely intolerant and hostile of religion, spirituality and scientific research into parapsychological phenomena, suppressin and discrediting serious efforts of research through the so-called "organized skepticism").
You can see the intrinsic irrationality, negativity and dishonesty of the worldview of metaphysical naturalism and secular humanism. It's a purely negative, anti-religious philosophy; but it's intrinsically immoral and potentially dangerous for society and the sanity of individuals.
It's essentially totalitarian in nature; in his most extreme forms, it can't tolerate disidence or critical questioning of their dogmas and beliefs, and its disidents are defamed and morally attacked; (see for example the case of Antony Flew and the speculations about him becoming old, delusional and fearful of death, as "explanations" of his convertion to deism; see also the bigotry manifested by atheists to low the rating in Amazon of a book defending the belief in the Christian God.).
In this point, it becomes very similar to the most irrational and intolerant forms of religious fundamentalism.
Given the ethical implications of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, if you have independent good reasons to think that moral values are objective and agree that certain actions (like torturing children for fun, or raping atheists for fun) are intrinsically and objectively bad and wrong, then you have a powerful ethical reason to reject metaphysical naturalism and materialistic atheism.
After all, as atheist and naturalist Keith Augustine has persuasively argued: "I think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral laws... It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them... given that moral subjectivism is just as logically viable as moral objectivism and that moral objectivism is implausible if a scientific naturalism is true, I think that there is a good case for the nonexistence of objective moral values"
Therefore, if moral objetivism is true, scientific naturalism is plausibly false. So, if you agree with moral objectivism (e.g. if you agree that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, not purely a matter of social indoctrination, consensus, invention or biological pressure), you have a powerful reason and argument to reject metaphysical naturalism.
Links of interest:
-My post on Richard Dawkins' pseudoskepticism.
-My post on "Secular Humanism and sexual perversions"
Given the ethical implications of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, if you have independent good reasons to think that moral values are objective and agree that certain actions (like torturing children for fun, or raping atheists for fun) are intrinsically and objectively bad and wrong, then you have a powerful ethical reason to reject metaphysical naturalism and materialistic atheism.
After all, as atheist and naturalist Keith Augustine has persuasively argued: "I think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral laws... It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them... given that moral subjectivism is just as logically viable as moral objectivism and that moral objectivism is implausible if a scientific naturalism is true, I think that there is a good case for the nonexistence of objective moral values"
Therefore, if moral objetivism is true, scientific naturalism is plausibly false. So, if you agree with moral objectivism (e.g. if you agree that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, not purely a matter of social indoctrination, consensus, invention or biological pressure), you have a powerful reason and argument to reject metaphysical naturalism.
Links of interest:
-My post on Richard Dawkins' pseudoskepticism.
-My post on "Secular Humanism and sexual perversions"
