Richard Dawkins says the silliest things for a man who claims to be rationally superior. He wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post last weekend and says that atheists don't need God to be good and that they're more generous than religious people.
Once again, an atheist is avoiding the point. No one claims that atheists can't be good without God. The claim is that atheism can't ground or explain good in a purely physical, natural world. Of course, atheists can do good things. But they can't explain the idea of good - or evil - in their worldview. Here's a fuller explanation. Atheists regularly shift the point from explaining good to being good. Dawkins does it here.
He goes on to point out that atheists can be as generous - are even more generous - than relgious people. He says that the top three philanthropists are non-believers. Again, Dawkins is shifting the terms. You can't refute studies of large groups with three specially chosen examples. That's called special pleading and is a logical fallacy.
Dawkins further changes the terms by suggesting that if we discount charity given to churches, then atheists are more generous than religious people. He justifies this shift because he thinks that giving to churches is only for proselytizing. Of course, that's not all churches do. Churches are deeply engaged in many social and humanitarian efforts that would still count as "charity" under Dawkins' redefinition. And that's why many religious people give to their churches. They also give to parachurch organizations that focus on helping people. So yes, if we redefine the terms, he can win the argument by wiping out most of the evidence. He attempts to refute the consistent finding of studies that religious people are more generous than non-religous people by simply discounting what counts as charity and substituting his own definition. Of course, at that point he's only speculating.
It's kind of amusing that Dawkins can only argue with the evidence by making such glaring logical fallacies.
Please fix your typos, I blushing.
Posted by: MW | July 12, 2012 at 03:25 AM
Melinda,
For you to say that Dawkins "is avoiding the point" suggests you think he's responding to a particular argument you have in mind. But this is evidently not the case. Dawkins is the one choosing the topic, here, not you. If you don't like the topic he has chosen---if you would rather talk about something else---then that's understandable I guess, but it hardly works as a criticism against Dawkins.
It's also not true that "no one claims that atheists can't be good without God." Just do a Google search if you don't believe me. As for myself, I have personally encountered nutcases who believe just that. And by the way, it's not always obvious that they really are nutcases. For instance James White, an otherwise articulate and bright fellow, once expressed the idea that if God was not actively preventing men from making it so, then society would be a lot more chaotic and violent than it actually is. These opinions, if not worth taking the time to refute in detail, are at least worth denouncing.
But that is not Dawkins' thesis. He's not arguing against the absurd idea that atheists can never be good without God. Instead, he thinks that on balance atheists behave just as morally and charitably as Christians. And if you are skeptical that Christians ever deny this, then just continue reading your own blog post! There, you expressly assert that "religious people are more generous than non-religious people." Such claims deserve a rebuttal.
Now, if you think that Dawkins is mistaken, then that's a legitimate concern, and you are welcome to try to refute his claim. I'm not sure a single study is quite enough to do that, but it is certainly a good start. But I think it's very odd for you to complain that he is addressing a different topic than you prefer him to address. Not everyone shares your priorities there.
Regards,
Ben
Posted by: Ben | July 12, 2012 at 04:34 AM
I don't have to believe in gravity to make an apple fall from a tree - therefore, gravity does not exist.
Ben,
It's not necessarily the number of studies, but the nature of the study that's important. In theory, one study is enough to reveal truth if there are no recognized contradictory studies that need to be addressed.
Posted by: KWM | July 12, 2012 at 05:08 AM
I think you need to spellcheck your 'discount charity', Melinda - you obviously didn't read MW's comment :)
Posted by: PaulR | July 12, 2012 at 05:16 AM
"Churches are deeply engated"..."if we discunt charity"
"Discunt"? "Engated"?
I have noticed typos in a lot of your posts, just trying to help out, maybe an editor or a closer read in necessary in the future, because typos hurt your credibility. Thanks!
Posted by: Brian | July 12, 2012 at 05:17 AM
The problem is in the ambiguity of the statement "good without God."
This is why almost every apologetics text you read or any debate in which you hear the moral argument used by the Christian they clarify that you don't need to believe in God in order to be good, but you do need the existence of God to ground morality.
The fact is, Ben, most atheists get confused on this even in the midst of debates where the Christian opponent has clearly laid it out (e.g., Sam Harris got confused on this as I recall, and I believe Atkins and others).
The problem with Dawkins' article is that he doesn't bother to clarify what he means.
Now Ben says: "It's also not true that "no one claims that atheists can't be good without God." Just do a Google search if you don't believe me."
But when we follow Ben's google search and start to read some of the articles and not just look at their titles, it's obvious most of them are actually claiming the same thing: atheists need God as a ground of morality, but not necessarily a belief in God to be moral.
Other links are adding further nuances, such as "ultimately" good--being what is pleasing to God and noting that you cannot do this without faith. Others are saying that belief in God is goodness-motivator, but admit that some do okay without belief in that goodness-motivator.
Maybe if Ben did a little more than skim titles of google searches he would see the examples are less prominent than he thinks.
Ben says: "For instance James White, an otherwise articulate and bright fellow, once expressed the idea that if God was not actively preventing men from making it so, then society would be a lot more chaotic and violent than it actually is. These opinions, if not worth taking the time to refute in detail, are at least worth denouncing."
But that's a very odd "instance" for Ben's claim, since nothing Dawkins says would refute White's claim!
Furthermore, this isn't a claim that would be (or should be) unique to James White. Even Arminians believe in prevenient grace, which helps overcome depravity and makes it possible to do spiritual good.
Naturally, Dawkins says nothing to this point. So I don't think this sort of claim being made by White and others helps him save Dawkins.
Posted by: The Janitor | July 12, 2012 at 06:32 AM
Ben says: "[Dawkins] thinks that on balance atheists behave just as morally and charitably as Christians."
But Dawkins only mentions four people and three charities. Does that support Dawkins claim that, on balance, atheists behave just as morally and charitably as Christians?
No.
Posted by: The Janitor | July 12, 2012 at 06:44 AM
Ben says: "you are welcome to try to refute his claim. I'm not sure a single study is quite enough to do that, but it is certainly a good start."
I guess all we would need to do is cite five people and four charities from the Christian side. Right?
Posted by: The Janitor | July 12, 2012 at 06:46 AM
"I have noticed typos in a lot of your posts, just trying to help out, maybe an editor or a closer read [in] necessary in the future, because typos hurt your credibility. Thanks!"
By your own standard you have damaged your credibility to correct Melinda's.
Typos, really? Grow up guys.
Posted by: Steve Abernathy | July 12, 2012 at 06:47 AM
I have come up against atheists that claim that morals are a part of the natural world in the same way that instincts are. They claim that they are passed down the same way. I think that aughts are not addressed by instinct and are not the same kind of thing as morals because of that. Is there a kind of category error here that would prevent transmission of morals in the same way as instincts? Anyone care to comment on this?
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | July 12, 2012 at 07:49 AM
The Janitor,
You wrote:
I don't think he needs to be clear about that particular phrase, because being good without God in any other sense than the one he explicitly lays out is not the subject of his piece. Rather, he is discussing the question of whether atheists tend to be as generous as Christians and other theists. His thesis statement seems very clear to me: "there is good evidence that subscribers to atheistic group fundraising efforts are at least as generous as religious donors."
I've never seen the Atkins debate, but I did see the Harris debate and he did not appear the least bit confused.
However, why are you talking about the moral argument? Dawkins piece is about a completely different topic.
I don't know about "most," but my argument is not that one topic is more popular than another. Rather, I pointed out that there really do exist people who think that atheists cannot be morally good. For example check out this fellow (who came up in the search to which I linked earlier). Or, if you like, continue to search Google and I'm sure you'll find a myriad of other similar examples.
I agree that Dawkins does not address this subject. That's why it doesn't make sense to criticize Dawkins on the grounds that most people agree atheists can behave morally.
But Melinda did address the subject, hence my comments about it.
You misunderstand. I am not out to "save Dawkins." Personally, I dislike Dawkins, and I don't think he has many good points.
But I also don't think that Melinda had many good points, and that was the subject of my comment.
Posted by: Ben | July 12, 2012 at 07:58 AM
Saying that something is good is actually a statement about the person's perception of a situation. "Good" can be describing an immoral act or a moral act according to the users idea of good.
Also, I would say that nobody can do good without God. We can't even take a single breath without God.
Perhaps I'm being too picky. I don't think knowledge should be confused with wisdom, but it is sometimes. Since it happens maybe it should.
Posted by: Billy | July 12, 2012 at 08:40 AM
Another aspect to consider is the reason behind the good works done by Christians as opposed to atheists. Many Christians will do so out of love and freedom (because we were loved first, and forgiven). So it tends to be a more selfless form of giving.
Many atheists have experienced that by doing good, good is returned (a kind of karma without the Hindu rationale).
What difference does this make? Well, I think that one of the main reasons people like Dawkins feel the need to claim that atheists can do good without God is because of the strength of the morality argument.
But as explained by others, Christians don't disagree that atheists can do so - besides some conservatives - but how do atheists explain why Christians would do good things without gaining anything from it?
The actions themselves are external, but the motivation behind them is significant. Either Christians are deluded or there is some other force working internally to give them the ability to lay down their lives (in some cases), or to give sacrificially.
Posted by: GMac | July 12, 2012 at 08:53 AM
Richard Dawkins was forced to admit he is really agnostic rather than athiest as he cannot know if God does not exist, though he gave it a very low probability. I feel Richrad Dawkins and others are missing the point. i did not become a christian to do "good" but because i know i am bad. There are no "good works" i can do that will please God. We have the argument backwards, its sin that agnostics and atheists cannot comprehend as an abomination to the objective benchmark morality of God. Why have we allowed Dawkins to dumb down and to reframe this argument into one of who gives more to charity when Good works will not even save anyone and is not the reason we became christians. Now who sins more, sins more wilfully and repents of sin the most? who is more full of pride, who fornicates the most, who worships more idols, who lies the most, who murders the most, who steals the most, who is more forgiving? etc would be far better measure of morality.
Posted by: Andrew | July 12, 2012 at 10:25 AM
I think Andrew makes a very good point. In what appears to be a blog about goodness Melinda spends 65% of her blog writing about generosity as exemplified by giving to charity. I understand that she initially is responding to Dawkins' comments, but using this as a benchmark for goodness is problematic. Is merely giving to a charity really goodness? Can someone's giving to charity not be good? If I don't give to charity is that evil?
Posted by: brianehunt | July 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Ben,
You say: "being good without God in any other sense than the one he explicitly lays out is not the subject of his piece. Rather, he is discussing the question of whether atheists tend to be as generous as Christians and other theists."
That doesn't address the point I made. You say Dawkins explicitly lays out a sense of being good without God, but in fact he doesn't lay out any sense of what he means by "without God." Which is the problem I was pointing out.
You say: "Rather, he is discussing the question of whether atheists tend to be as generous as Christians and other theists."
Then what Dawkins has to say underwhelming and does almost nothing to make the case.
You say: “His thesis statement seems very clear to me: "there is good evidence that subscribers to atheistic group fundraising efforts are at least as generous as religious donors."
That “thesis” would not address what you assert he is discussing. It may be that subscribers to atheistic charities are as generous as religious subscribers, but this won’t tell us whether atheists tend to be as generous as Christians or other theists.
You say: “I did see the Harris debate and he did not appear the least bit confused.”
I’ll have to listen to it again later today and see if I remember correctly. If so, I’ll point out to you where, specifically, he makes the confusion.
You say: “However, why are you talking about the moral argument? Dawkins piece is about a completely different topic.”
Read my original comment again and it should be clear to you. Atheists often confuse the issue (or perhaps they are doing a bait and switch?) of the moral argument--whether atheism has any ontological room for morality--with the question of whether atheists are good people, or can be good people.
You say: “I don't know about "most," but my argument is not that one topic is more popular than another.”
Well, that’s a clever attempt to salvage your point. But in fact it is relevant if you can only find a small minority of people who make this claim. This is because we can find people who claim virtually anything. You can find people who think aliens built the pyramids, who think 9/11 was a consipracy of George W. Bush, etc. etc. But why would Dawkins waste his time with a few “nutcases,” as you say, who are not representative of the mainstream in this regard? Maybe Dawkins is only capable of picking such low hanging fruit? Was that really Dawkins intention, or did Dawkins think he was addressing a common position? Obviously, he thinks he is addressing a “widespread belief,” but of course that belief isn’t widespread so far as I can see.
You say: “Rather, I pointed out that there really do exist people who think that atheists cannot be morally good.”
There really do exist people who believe in faeries. (Seriously, I have a book in my library written in defense of them.) Is it accurate to call that widespread? I don’t think so. Nor do I think it is a “widespread” belief that atheists cannot be good.
You say: “For example check out this fellow (who came up in the search to which I linked earlier).”
I’m sure you understand that this doesn’t substantiate the statement that it is “widespread.”
You say: “Or, if you like, continue to search Google and I'm sure you'll find a myriad of other similar examples.”
Sorry, but I don’t have time to do the searching myself. But if it was widespread, shouldn’t we find popular leaders in Christianity making the charge? So, for example, you should be able to find a William Lane Craig or Dinesh D’Souza or a Ravi Zacharias or a Greg Koukle or the like making the claim. Or maybe even a prominent pastor like R. C. Sproul or Piper or MacArthur, etc?
Do you see any of them--the popular leaders of Evangelical Christianity--making the claim?
I’ll say “fair enough” to the rest of your remarks that I didn’t address here.
Posted by: The Janitor | July 12, 2012 at 01:29 PM
brianehunt,
If you read Dawkins piece, this is how he sets up the issue. So Melinda is just responding to Dawkins on his own terms.
Posted by: The Janitor | July 12, 2012 at 01:30 PM
Louis //I have come up against atheists that claim that morals are a part of the natural world in the same way that instincts are.// --I believe that what I've heard regarding instincts and morality is that there is no OBJECTIVE basis for the atheistic worldview. WL Craig talks about this in one (probably many) of his debates. He was asked about non-Christians living meaningful, purpose-filled lives. Yes, he said, you can; but not OBJECTIVELY. You have to set your own standards as to what meaning and purpose are. Everything then comes down to subjectivity and relativity. You're exactly right about the 'oughtness' of a thing. Now that the new atheists are trying to explain even morality with evolution, they still cannot explain that 'oughtness'.
Posted by: DW | July 13, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Agreed DW unlike the evolutionists we can explain the 'oughtness" from our consciences and having the laws of God written in our heart. There is simply no objective ground for the evolutionists to base morality on. A famours atheist logo read "Be good for goodness sake" why not be bad instead? Why is it wrong to hurt other peaople?
These are question atheists and agnostics cannot give any objective or meaningful answer to. They want it both ways, on the one hand they claim moral relativisn and on the other claim a clear objective defintion of good and evil.
Posted by: Andrew | July 14, 2012 at 08:42 AM
Do you really believe the moral argument really works?
Or is the point of it to put Harris in a spot of bother?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | July 16, 2012 at 01:31 PM