In this
chapter Dawkins tackles the issue of morality from an atheist/evolutionist
viewpoint. He comes to the table armed
with some very nasty viewpoints uncharitably issued by some who claim the name
of Christian. It is unfortunate that the
behavior of many who claim Jesus seems to lack so very much of Jesus’ character. Of
course, it is equally unfortunate that there are examples of hate-filled people
from all walks of life, including atheism.
But I will not quote Stalin, Hitler or Kim Jong-II here. Rather I will only point out how very sad it
would be if a man who wants to be serious about God and the matter of faith
would go to their hate-mail bag for examples instead of church leadership. His argument would be more serious if he could
quote Bill Hybels, Bill Bright or Bill Graham.
Dawkins
points out that several books have already been written arguing that morality
can be derived by Darwinian conclusion.
It is true that altruism can be entirely driven by bloodline (the
preservation of kinship), and it can be selfishly driven if it is reciprocal or
manipulative. He spends some time
detailing a few of the many examples of such behavior in the animal kingdom. In people, he adds the concept of altruistic
giving as a function of the expression or advertisement of dominance (that is,
the more generous you are, the more dominant you must be). Even with these ‘proofs’ however, Dawkins is still
faced with the fact that most people will be kind (if not generous) even to
people they are not related to, do not know, will never meet again and even (to
Dawkin’s discredit, I would say
especially) to some who are decidedly unkind to them. Such behavior is the epitome of Christianity.
I cannot help but point out that Jesus taught that, modeled that and went as
far as asking God to forgive even those who were crucifying Him. This same behavior is evident in all who
truly know Christ (which I would take as the only qualifier for being ‘religious’).
His logic
to solve that is the suggestion that such behavior is the result of
evolutionary ‘misfiring’. Such behavior must
be (as he concluded Christians were in chapter 5), ultimately defective, even
though it results in good and useful ‘byproducts’ (such as care for the destitute). He likens compassion to human love, effectively
calling them the built in rules of thumb of our evolved genetic make up: “Such
rules of thumb influence us still, not in a Calvinistically deterministic way
but filtered through the civilizing influences of literature and custom, law
and tradition – and of course,
religion. Just as the primitive brain
rule of sexual lust passes through the filter of civilization to emerge in the
love scenes of Romeo and Juliet, so…primitive brain
rules of altruism and empathy end up in the misfiring that cheers us in the
chastened reconciliation of Shakespeare’s final scene.”
You might
have to re-read that a time or two, but the gist of it is that Dawkins believes
your compassion, love, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, and all other good and
profitable moral inclinations are yours….completely by mistake. I find that odd, because earlier he wrote, “…natural
selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every
variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and
adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and
wherever opportunity offers, as the improvement of each organic being.” I would have
thought that if is “daily
and hourly scrutinizing…every variation,
even the slightest”, then it would not be
permitting such ingrained and clearly unhelpful (from the perspective of
propagation) inclinations.
Besides,
how would natural selection know which is good and which is bad to start with? But I guess circular logic is amoral, so it
must be OK. That’s good (pun fully intended), because Dawkins then goes on
to point out that morality and a sense of right vs wrong exists among all
people groups – a fact he takes as credit
toward his hypothesis. A hypothesis
that forgets a key religious teaching - our universal sense of morality is a
hallmark of the fact that we’re made in the image of God.
Dawkins
seems to be operating under the impression that we need God to do good. I rather think not. Christian Scripture such as Matthew 7:21 makes
it clear that we can do good things from our perspective and even have good
results, and yet do so out of evil hearts.
Our sense of good and evil is just that – a sense, not a finely tuned
line of demarcation. That said, it is
most noteworthy that good begets good, and bad begets bad. By that I mean that even people who would
normally choose to do evil will often choose otherwise when they are in the
midst of people doing good. That’s why society doesn’t completely break down. Unfortunately those who normally do good will
often give up on that and do evil when all around them do evil. This is the principle of mob mentality and
just about everyone in society comes across that every now and again. Dawkins has a great example of it in his
friend’s description of Montreal
during the police strike.
Dawkins
seems to think that apart from God, if the situation would’ve been left alone those in the city who would normally do good
would eventually win the day, and order would’ve been restored. I disagree.
Evil will continue to do/seek/be evil until it either encounters a force
greater than it (a force acting for good) or it encounters true good. I rather think that (apart from God) if the
mayor had not acted quickly in calling in the Mounties and the army, the whole
city would’ve quickly degenerated into
chaos. Alternatively, someone would’ve had to have the internal motivation to stand up to the
mob and refuse it no matter what the cost.
That is no small thing. Such a
motivation must overpower every one of the ‘evolutionary traits’ that Dawkins affirms (the drive for self-preservation, the
drive to gain something, etc). But where
can a man (or woman) get such a ‘good’ motivation? Except
of course, from God.
It was
this motivation that drove Christ to the cross – a just man paying the penalty
of all the unjust. It is a motivation
that comes from beyond the human condition and seeks the good of all mankind
even at the cost of one’s self. I know many people so motivated. A young lady I know who left Canada to serve
the poor in Niger comes to mind. An
older lady who could have a good life here but chooses to live in the jungles
of Papua Indonesia to provide medical care and teaching to people who have
literally nothing. A professional couple
who help prisoners in Taiwan, a family serving in Guinea – there are too many to mention here. All of them have given up lives of affluence,
left family and friends, learned a new (and often difficult) language and work
daily with all manner of difficulty and lack often suffering personal loss,
disease and rampant crime – all to better the lives of
others who they otherwise would have never even met. All because of the good that God is. I thank God for them. I - and the myraids of people they help - think
the world is a better place for their belief.
A belief Dawkins would have you think we are better off without.
No comments:
Post a Comment