Taking Things for Granted

Richard Dawkins has lamented the intellectual failure of a fellow scientist who rejected evolution because of his understanding of the Bible.  Yet Dawkins' criticism requires certain principles that his view of reality can't support and Frank Beckwith cleverly points this out.

[G]iven Dawkins’ atheism, there is something odd about his lament, for it seems to require that Dawkins accept something about the nature of human beings and the natural moral law that his atheism seems to reject.

Let me explain what I mean. Dawkins harshly criticizes Wise for embracing a religious belief that results in Wise’s not treating himself and his talents, intelligence, and abilities in a way appropriate for their full flourishing. That is, given the opportunity to hone and nurture certain gifts—for example, intellectual skill—no one, including Wise, should waste them as a result of accepting a false belief. The person who violates, or helps violate, this norm, according to Dawkins, should be condemned, and we should all bemoan this tragic moral neglect on the part of our fellow(s). But the issuing of that judgment on Wise by Dawkins makes sense only in light of Wise’s particular talents and the sort of being Wise is by nature, a being who Dawkins seems to believe possesses certain intrinsic capacities and purposes, the premature disruption of which would be an injustice.

So the human being who wastes his talents is one who does not respect his natural gifts or the basic capacities whose maturation and proper employment make possible the flourishing of many goods. In other words, the notion of “proper function,” as Alvin Plantinga puts it, coupled with the observation that certain perfections grounded in basic capacities have been impermissibly obstructed from maturing, is assumed in the very judgment Dawkins makes about Wise and the way by which Wise should treat himself.

But Dawkins, in fact, does not actually believe that living beings, including human beings, have intrinsic purposes or are designed so that one may conclude that violating one’s proper function amounts to a violation of one’s moral duty to oneself. Dawkins has maintained for decades that the natural world only appears to be designed. He writes in The God Delusion: “Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that—an illusion.”

But this means that his lament for Wise is misguided, for Dawkins is lamenting what only appears to be Wise’s dereliction of his duty to nurture and employ his gifts in ways that result in his happiness and an acquisition of knowledge that contributes to the common good. Yet because there are no designed natures and no intrinsic purposes, and thus no natural duties that we are obligated to obey, the intuitions that inform Dawkins’ judgment of Wise are as illusory as the design he explicitly rejects. But that is precisely one of the grounds by which Dawkins suggests that theists are irrational and ought to abandon their belief in God.

Some features of our humanity are so ingrained that they're undeniable and taken for granted, even when someone's view of reality can't explain them.  I think this is what can be quite frustrating in conversations with atheists about grounding morality and, as Frank has pointed out, teleology.  Humans can't function well without these principles, they're self-evident to almost everyone, so they appear obvious even to the atheist even if their naturalism can't explain them.  A fish takes for granted its wet - it's obvious, even if it can't explain it (assuming it had the capacity to).  Just as very often an atheist asked to provide a grounding for morality and teleology with thinks the request absurd.  It's obvious.  Which is actually just our point.

(HT:  Between Two Worlds)

Comments

[Alvin]

Dawkins' problem is the problem of most people today, Christian and Non-Christian alike: inconsistency. It is well and good to be able to approach things from multiple philosophical perspectives, but not to attribute that which comes from one view to another in order to maintain presuppositions which are not otherwise justified.

[Jeff T]

Just another example how evolutionists try to use design to argue for evolution...it just doesn't work...

[Chris]

Here's another facet for Mr. Dawkins and kindred souls to ponder: If our personal choices are merely manifestations of genetically predetermined, chemically induced thought processes driven by a random and ultimately unknowable evolutionary process, who's to say that this "wayward" scientist might not in fact be traveling down the next step in man's ever-upward evolutionary path from a knuckle-dragging, self-centered beast into something else?

Besides, given the impersonal and inevitible nature of this all-governing and ever-moving process, where did the intrinsic "value" come from by which to judge the superiority of one personal evolutionary/maturity path over another? It's only from hindsight (our own, by the way) that some might observe/judge that a deviation from the norm turned out to be advantageous or detrimental to some particular species. Isn't it a bit early to judge the positives/negatives of this scientist's decision?

Just a side observation: As finite beings in an apparently (or for all practical purposes, infinite) universe, does it not demonstrate a grand level of hubris to assume that God might not in fact exist in that one tiny slice of the grand universe (or mulit-verses?) that one has not yet personally and exhaustively investigated?

Just a thought...

(By the way, I personally do not ascribe to man's evolving from a single cell into our current "magnificent" stature. Actually, once sin infected both the spiritual and physical makeup of Man, I observe an ongoing DEvolution from an original state of spiritual and physical perfection. The only cure for this ever declining spiral is the blood of Christ.)

[Twins]

Bravo fellow Christians,

The liberal atheist and their like minded followers love to spout logic and reason(even if theirs is flawed or sef refuting)in an effort to bolster their assertion that their is no God.
Many of these people are intelligent enought to put together complex and (on the surface) compelling arguments to support their beliefs.
All such arguments can and have been successfully refuted by intelligent and logic driven Christian arguments.
Unfortunately, the general public is not privy to the logic and sound reasoning put forth by Christians in support of their faith. Consequently, the average non-believer( and many "Christians") feel that their faith is or cannot be logic driven or reasonable , but must neccessarily be based on blind 'Faith".
We need more frequent, more public and more logic driven pro-God arguments put forth into the public marketplace. I firmly believe that Grogory Koukle and other Christians who have (an obvious), I think, gift for presenting well thought out arguments to support our beliefs are Heavan sent to reach certain specific non-believers.
As a Logic driven, Math loving and Science interested Follower in Christ, I thank God that He put Christians into my life who helped me see that a belief in God is firmly rooted in sound reasoning and has never been refuted by "real" science.

[Tim Elsenpeter]

Actually Alvin gets to the root of the debate. We, both sides, start with presuppositions/opinions. In Mr. Dawkins case, he is unwilling and unable to accept the evidence of design that 'his' science provides. We as Christians are very fortunate in that we have the evidence on our side, but we need to understand that we also start with many presuppositions that may not be accurate, or that we, as individuals, may not be able to adequately defend. I for instance, wouldn't try to discuss the intricate design found in the cell as a molecular biologist. I can defend it in a general way as an an artifact of mind. I can use the cell phone as one example of a synergistic series of inter- connected systems. These systems function quite effectively as a means of communication because they were designed to. Our world is full of such systems. My lack of technical understanding doesn't negate the fact that these systems are designed. My analysis is accurate. The same holds true for my faith that Jesus is the designer of the universe; it isn't blind faith, but faith in evidence. So far I don't see any evidence of complex systems organizing themselves. So by reverse engineering the universe into antiquity, that is what science actually does, we come to a point where time, space and matter didn't exist. So far only the Bible reveals a designer that seems to have the requisite attributes. What Jesus has done in my life is exactly what He said he would do. I pray that He will do for Dr. Dawkins what He has done for me and countless others.

[Aaron Snell]

>>Just a side observation: As finite beings in an apparently (or for all practical purposes, infinite) universe, does it not demonstrate a grand level of hubris to assume that God might not in fact exist in that one tiny slice of the grand universe (or mulit-verses?) that one has not yet personally and exhaustively investigated?

Chris, just between you and me and the rest of the STR blog, I would never, ever argue this way with a non-Christian (or more specifically, an atheist). First of all, it is the monumental 20th century discovery that the universe is, in fact, finite that is one of the most powerful evidences for the existence of a supernatural creator.

Second, this kind of argument is fallacious - it commits what is called the argument from ignorace fallacy - and will get you in deep trouble with quick-thinking atheists.

More damaging to our message, however, is characterizing God as a "thing" one might find in the universe, rather than the ground of all being. God does not reside in a far-flung "slice" of the universe, and to argue this way is in fact arguing for the wrong god.