A Review of the God Delusion (Part 9)
Richard Dawkins, in chapter 6 of The God Delusion, takes upon himself the Herculean task of trying to prove that man can be moral without God. Years ago, your congenial editor had a discussion with an atheist who insisted he was probably more moral than I was—he had never cheated on his wife, he didn't smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, or gamble. He insisted, therefore, that atheists could be moral without getting his morality from the Scriptures. I reminded him that I never said atheists could not exhibit moral behavior—just that they had no objective basis for doing so.
The reader of Dawkins' work will find himself saying over and over throughout this chapter and the next, "Who determines what is good?" In fact, the very title of chapter six is, "The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?" Good by whose definition? Apparently, Dawkins thinks his readers should agree with what his definition of good is.
He tries to provide a natural explanation for goodness. Animals will protect each other based on kinship or a reciprocal arrangement (251), which makes sense for animals, but it doesn't explain why a fireman will dash into a burning building to save people who are not his kinsmen, nor does he expect those imperiled souls to show up at his house if it is on fire (no reciprocity). Human beings make sacrifices that go way beyond anything that occurs in nature.
Dawkins apparently expects his readers to agree with him when he states that our moral sense predates religion (254). Of course, that is not possible since God gave instructions to mankind from the very beginning concerning worship and morality (Gen. 4:3-5).
The Bogus Test
To attempt to prove his statement about morality, Dawkins offers a bogus test. He selects three dilemmas, and both Christians and atheists choose the same answers; therefore, he concludes that the Bible is not needed for people to be moral. But what are the "choices"?
The first one involves a trolley. If the vehicle is not diverted, the five people on board will die. If it is diverted, they will be saved, but another individual will die. Someone must decide immediately whether to let five people die or one. She diverts the trolley. Only one person dies. 90% of atheists and Christians agree with the decision (258).
A child is drowning; you are the only person near enough to save him in time, but your pants will be ruined in the process. What do you do? You save the child, of course, and 97% are in agreement. (Maybe the other 3% can't swim?) Once again, no difference exists between atheists and Christians.
The third "test" involves an organ transplant. Five people vitally need various organ transplants in order to live. In the waiting room is a healthy person. If he is killed, his healthy organs could be used to save five people. 97% of people responded to this grotesque situation by saying it would be immoral to kill a healthy person for his organs (Have these people been reading Robin Cook?) (258).
The flaw in the test is that none of these situations are valid. Dawkins must be extremely optimistic if he thinks readers will not see through this ploy. These are all Hobsons Choices, which means there is really only one course of action. According to Wikipedia, a Hobson's Choice is "a situation in which it seems that you can choose between different things or actions, but there is really only one thing that you can take or do."
Now, let's try something more realistic. How many atheists believe abortion is moral? How many Christians do? Does anyone think that the percentages will be the same? How about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality? The two groups will not be statistically the same. Dawkins' test proves absolutely nothing.
Why Be Good?
Instead of making an argument that defines what good is and what motivates an atheist to do good, Dawkins attempts to put the proverbial shoe on his opponent's foot. He likes to ask theists: "Do you really mean to tell the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment" (259)? And to back him up, he quotes Einstein: "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed" (259).
So, are rewards and punishments evil? Let's say a child comes home from school one day and wants to eat a cookie. His mother tells him he cannot have one because it is too close to supper, and it will ruin his appetite. The mother leaves the kitchen, and the child comes in and sneaks one, confident that his appetite will not be ruined. She catches him and spanks him (this scenario obviously did not happen in Sweden).
She makes an agreement with him for the next day. "If you do not eat a cookie after school, I will let you have two after dinner. However, if you do, you will receive another spanking and no cookies for the rest of the week." Will he obey only because of his mother's approval and reward and to avoid disapproval and punishment? And it he does obey her for fear of punishment and hope of reward, is that home "a sorry lot"?
"But we're speaking of adults here; it's a more complicated situation," someone might protest. Yes, it is. There are other considerations to keep in mind.
Just as parents teach us right from wrong, the Heavenly Father does, also, but right and wrong are not all that is involved. First of all, God made us in His image, and there ought to be a response of gratitude on our part toward Him. Of course, an atheist like Dawkins can only be thankful to nature, we presume. Part of being thankful for the gift of life involves loving Him in return (Matt. 22:37-39). Part of love is keeping His commandments (John 14:15; 2 John 6). In revealing these to us, God tells us what is right and wrong—what is righteousness and what constitutes objective moral evil. So, are we moral only because of a reward or fear of punishment? No, we also obey out of love and gratitude.
Why don't all people understand that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent child in the womb of its mother, and then try to cover up the selfish deed by mouthing platitudes that it is between a woman and her doctor? How ridiculous! Yes, without the emphasis on the fact that what is in the womb is a human life (Gen. 25:22-23; Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16), we might fall prey to such humanistic reasoning. But it is not just reward and punishment that motivates us, it is also love, gratitude, and the Word of God.
Why Not Be Bad?
Continuing in this subject, Dawkins quotes from Michael Shermer's book, The Science of Good and Evil: "If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would 'commit robbery, rape, and murder,' you reveal yourself as an immoral person" (259). This sentence does not take into consideration all the facts. First of all, if I were not a Christian, I do not know what I might do because, as things are, I am greatly under the influence of the Scriptures. Second, many not under the influence of Scriptures do rob, rape, and murder. How do I know that I would be any different. Third, adhering to the Scriptures is what make a person moral; so, yes, without them who knows what a person might do or be. Stalin did not murder 20 million people (or more) when he was a Catholic—only when he became an atheist. Shermer adds:
If…you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good (259).
This point was already answered above. Christians reject this alternative. Those who claim to be good persons without believing in God were often raised in homes where Christian principles were practiced even though the Bible was not mentioned. What if those same people were reared in homes in Communist countries. Would they still be "good persons"?
The Montreal Police Strike
The Montreal police strike of 1969 is the next "proof" offered to prove Dawkins' case. When the police went on strike, looting occurred. Taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service which competed against the taxis. Citizens robbed banks, set fires, and broke store windows. Property damage was estimated at about three million dollars. Of course, this goes against Dawkins' theory that restraint is not needed. But he tries to turn this loss into a win by claiming that the majority of the population in Montreal believe in God. Why didn't the fear of God restrain these people (260-61)?
Isn't the answer obvious? Probably, only 5% of the people engaged in these activities. But let's say it was double that. The majority of a citizens in a city could refrain from such actions, and they could still occur. 90% would be a majority. So would 80%. Does Dawkins think that 40% of Montreal's inhabitants participated in this unlawful behavior? Surely no statistics would imply such a state of lawlessness.
But even if it did, it would only prove one thing—that those who claim to believe in God have never read His Book. "You shall not steal," is fairly prominent—being one of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:15). It is also repeated in the New Testament (Eph. 4:28). In fact, evening coveting what belongs to others is forbidden (Ex. 20:17; Col. 3:5). If those who looted believe in God and know these verses, then they are violating the religion they claim to believe in. They also need to repent and repay what they took. Likely, however, those who stole have no fear of God.
Manipulating Data
Yet another strategy of Dawkins is to "spin" data regarding cities. He cites a source which claims that of the 25 most dangerous cities in the United States, 76% of them are in Republican states, which usually have a large Christian influence (262). The theory is, therefore, that religious influence is not stopping people from being criminals. This observation is flawed in two respects.
First, anyone who has seen an election map will know that even most of the liberal states vote Democratic in major cities, and the more rural areas vote Republican. Chicago, for example, in Cook County votes so much in favor of Democrats, that it offsets the rest of the state, which votes Republican. Major cities, therefore, tend to vote Democratic rather than Republican.
What that means is that a state such as Texas may be conservative with a large Christian population, yet still have large cities like Austin and Houston where the number claiming to be Christians is significantly less. Those cities may have a high crime rate, therefore, even though they lie within the borders of a conservative state.
Second, the question of what state they are in is irrelevant. The question ought to be, "Which party is governing the city with the high crime rate?" Currently, the following cities are governed by Democrats: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Diego, Jacksonville, Austin, Indianapolis, San Francisco, Louisville, Seattle, Denver, Nashville, Washington, D.C., Las Vegas, Boston, Portland, Memphis, Baltimore, Atlanta, Oakland, Tampa. Has crime been associated with any of them?
Some of those cities can be found in states with a large "Christian" population; a few are not. The point is that implying that religion makes no difference is just plain false. Dawkins not only fails to prove his thesis; he makes himself look bad.