Is there morality without God? This was the topic which I debated with Princeton philosopher Peter Singer on the Riz Khan show on Al-Jazeera Monday. The segment is now up on the web and you can watch it here.
No, I haven't signed on as an Al-Jazeera regular. But the producers of the Riz Khan show on that network seemed a bit disappointed when Richard Dawkins agreed to appear on their show but then threw a tantrum when he found out he was scheduled to debate me. Instead Dawkins insisted on separate segments, with him going second, so that I wouldn't have a chance to challenge his arguments.
Singer is a much braver soul, and truth be told, he strikes me as more articulate and versatile than Dawkins. I suspect the only reason Singer isn't more of an atheist hero is because his social positions are so controversial. Basically Singer has declared that newborns have no rights and can be killed off during the first few weeks of their life, and he would vastly liberalize the rules for infanticide and euthanasia. Singer and I will be debating all this on December 3 at Princeton University. By all means come, but perhaps you should leave the grandparents at home.
In the Al-Jazeera exchange, Singer echoed a theme sounded by some of the street interviews: we don't need God to be good. And in this sense, who can disagree? Of course atheists can be kind and truthful and keep their oaths and contracts. No one is saying that Christians have a monopoly on virtue, or that unbelievers are incapable of it.
Rather, the deeper point is that morality seems built into human nature, and it doesn't have an adequate Darwinian explanation. Singer, an ardent Darwinist, admits this. He said on the show that evolution tells us what we are but it doesn't tell us anything about how we should be. Dawkins too writes that he is Darwinian in his biology but anti-Darwinian in his ethics. According to Dawkins, biology programs selfishness into our genes but we can rise above all that and behave unselfishly. Yet as I pointed out on the show, ants and cheetahs cannot do this. It makes no sense to say, "Bad cheetah! You shouldn't chase after that nice antelope." So where do we evolved primates get this other capacity that frequently operates against our self-interest? This is at least worth reflecting on.
One caller provoked Singer's derision by suggesting that even atheist philosophers get their morality from religion. Singer responded that this was factually wrong. He noted that John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham weren't religious. True, but their utilitarianism is based on the principle of equal respect for human beings, and that is a principle that came into the West because of Christianity. Singer attempted to deny this. He tried to locate this Western egalitarianism in Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, but he offered nothing to substantiate this far-fetched claim. If there were historians watching the show, I am sure they were shaking their heads. Certainly the American founders didn't get "all men are created equal" from the sayings of Epictetus or the meditations of Aurelius. By their own account, they attributed our egual dignity and our inalienable rights to the "Creator."
I'm looking forward to exploring this topic in greater detail with Singer on his home campus in December. But before that, I have my third debate with Christopher Hitchens coming up September 10 in St. Louis. As Hitchens himself put it, all our debates are different because each time we get better at countering what the other guy said the last time. If you'd like to find out more and get tickets, you can do so here.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 28)
61. Shannie; in all seriousness, we have jails because we have a deeply flawed policy on drugs.
But I know what you are getting at. We have jails for the same reason we evolved morals. It's the enforcement arm of morals. Asking why we have jails is like asking why we have morals, right?
Ryan Anderson at 6:06PM on Aug 14th 2008
62. Clif, maybe in twenty thousand years homo superior will he studying fossils of homo religiosa like we study neanderthal man today.
Saint Brian the Godless at 6:09PM on Aug 14th 2008
63. Dinesh,
I have just finished watching the debate. You kicked Peter Singer's butt and had him up against the ropes, using logical reasoning and the facts.
I find it bizarre that Peter Singer can advocate murdering your own baby, not during an abortion but AFTER you take it home and decide if you want it to live or not, a VERY immoral concept taken to a sick extreme, and then to have Singer argue that people can be moral without religion.
PETER SINGER IS "EXHIBIT A" of why atheism leads to immorality. Just quote the man using his own words. Who else would say it is good morality to allow people to murder their own babies weeks after they are born? Nobody with any standard of morality.
The standards of morality are more telling than the existence of morality. It is a very low standard of morality that says it is okay to murder your own baby. The higher standard of morality is to say that the defenseless child should be protected and raised into a healthy life. Isn't it double talk to say one has morality, while their standard of morality is so low that most people find it highly immoral?
Singer tries to have it both ways, whichever is convenient, in trying to claim that anything that is not religious is atheism, or just because something is none religious does not mean it is atheistic. If people do good works, but not in the name of religion, Singer claims that as proof, but does he accept the responsibility of atheistic regimes of the last century which murdered millions?
Atheism must stand as its own category, and not falsely claim all the good works done without a direct religious credit given, while rejecting all the bad works done by people actively trying to nullify religion.
Before Christianity, the human default position was the strong dominating the weak. That's why slavery was so widespread in ancient mankind, and that's why slavery was finally eradicated by modern mankind using Christianity as its moral compass. I think that Peter Singer's standard of morality says to kill humans as babies, they are no more worthwhile than a stray dog, after all.
Before Christianity, the human default position was the strong dominating the weak. That's Darwinism's survival of the fittest. Darwinism is the religion of wicked people who want to continually lower the standards of morality! Isn't that true?
Rev 3:16 at 6:10PM on Aug 14th 2008
64. Somber; I like the theory on the evolution of the concept of the afterlife.
Personally, I think the concept most likely occurred because our ancestors had no idea what dreams really were, so they came to the only logical conclusion they could with the knowledge they had; dreams were part of a spiritual life outside the physical one.
Ryan Anderson at 6:10PM on Aug 14th 2008
65. Of course we can. Only the brainwashed believe otherwise. Morality has nothing to do with god.
Further, only the stupid or deceitful believe that morality couldn't have evolved in humans. Which one do you think Dinesh is?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 6:13PM on Aug 14th 2008
66. Somber; I meant I like "your" theory on the evolution of the concept of the afterlife.
Ryan Anderson at 6:14PM on Aug 14th 2008
67. Rev, well said!
Troy at 6:15PM on Aug 14th 2008
68. From an evolutionary stand point, religion makes sense as an early survival tool. For one, it gives communities a cohesive element. After all, if you meet a stranger, and they worship the same diety or spirit, then there is a lowered chance of hostility and a greater opportunety for reproduction; particularly if the worship is spread out amid different populations.
Religion also introduces a hierarchy, a false one to be sure, but one that allows more efficient distrabution of labor. Having a priest caste reinforces the need for a ruling caste or dynasty. They two are able to synergize for the purpose of organizing and directing the activities of others. Greater efficiency translates to greater survivability and extension of genetic legacies.
Religion also gives primitive people distinct psychological advantages by explaining and eliminating seemingly random and dangerous influences on a population. It's not comforting to have unknown questions remain unanswered. By presenting a false answer, an answer is still given and allows for the population to get back to doing what it is told it should be doing. Also, it gives a psychological edge in cases of combat and death, by submerging the evolutionary urge to survive beneath an artificial urge to fulfill religious expectations.
Somber at 6:17PM on Aug 14th 2008
69. GOD is real,and he created everything.
the world's corruption has been done by man.
he is the way out and no one else is giving us a better deal. because there is no one else.
the deal is believe in jesus.
tom at 6:17PM on Aug 14th 2008
70. I'm always struck by the depiction of the "fire keeper" as priest in the novel and movie "La Guerre du Feu".
Ryan Anderson at 6:24PM on Aug 14th 2008
71. SBtG, will try to not let you down. ;-) I can "imagine" no religion. I grew up in a very religious household (Mennonite - think Amish with electricity. LOL) I was able to evolve out of it at an early age. IMO religion is an invention of man, providing explanations for the unexplainable to primitive people who had no other way to make sense of their world or how things worked. It was "magic!" It was also a way of controlling people. Koo Koo Ka Choo.
Jude at 6:25PM on Aug 14th 2008
72. this singer guy is learning from hollywood
P U B L I C I T Y .
Even he does not believe himself.
tom at 6:30PM on Aug 14th 2008
73. "Certainly the American founders didn't get "all men are created equal" from the sayings of Epictetus or the meditations of Aurelius. By their own account, they attributed our egual dignity and our inalienable rights to the "Creator.""
-----------------------------------------
Absolute BULL. Nowhere in the bible does it state anything about "all men are created equal". If you are going to cite the bible or Christianity as the basis of "all men are created equal" then you: (1) have not read the bible, (2) are lying, or (3) are in denial. There are so many references about men being created yet are NOT equal. ANY nonbelievers are NOT deemed as equal, rather as evil. Homosexuals are not deemed worth being allowed to live. Slavery is absolutely and completely sanctioned by the bible. Men and women are vastly unequal - even in the monetary value assigned by "God" to men and women depending on their age.
Really, Mr. D'Souza, this one seems to be a joke. Men and women loved and cared for each other, their children, their families, had compassion for their fellow men, abided by agreed laws, and showed every sense of morality, values, and ethics long, long, long before Christianity was concocted. Morality, compassion, caring, loving are all inherent to humanity and have been ensuring our survival for tens of thousands of years.
I'm beginning to believe your entire blog is a string of satire on the religious right.
Frank at 6:32PM on Aug 14th 2008
74. Rev: Not surprising you support Dinesh's point of view, but you seem to be omitting several points.
For instance, slavery thrived for centuries in christian countries until the 15th and 16th centuries, during the enlightenment. A period in which church authority was waining greatly. In fact, while christianity had been used by abolitionists for almost two hundred years, it was the economic imputus that ended slavery as a productive tool. Capitalism proved far more efficient a means of exploitation, and it was only when this economic point became apparent in the 19th century that slavery ended in the western world. It persists to this day in nations in which it is still economically viable, despite christianity.
Now in regards to Mr Singer's particular opinions, he is welcome to them. I don't agree with everything that Singer says, just as I don't agree with Dawkins or Hutchins. However, Mr. Singer is evidence of the subjectiveness of morality. You believe his stance is immoral. That is your interpretation according to the values that you have been raised with. If you were an atheist, would you agree with Mr. Singer? Would all your old opinions be rendered moot and would you embrace any atheist idea? If so, I have to question if the inverse is true regarding your 'christian' morals.
Now, atheism is not moralless. Singer aside, Atheism's morality is rooted in humanist values such as the golden rule and tolerance. Yes, many atheists are scornful and contemptuous of religion; just as theists are equally scornful and contemptuous of atheists. It is a sad commentary of American civil discourse that it has become so. Yet I do not see atheists calling for the execution of theists or the bombing of church buildings. That simply doesn't fit into how most atheists treat each other.
And yes, atheism has been used as an excuse for atrocity, just as religion has been used as an excuse for atrocity. The thing to remember is that atrocities do not happen because of atheism or religion but to fulfill the various agenda of elements of society. If Marx had advocated a state church, Stalin would have killed millions in the name of that church. If the crusaders had had an ICBM do you think they would have hesitated to use it on Mecca?
Somber at 6:33PM on Aug 14th 2008
75. Can We Have Morality Without God?
-----------------------------------
Yes. Always have and always will regardless of the deity du jour.
Frank at 6:35PM on Aug 14th 2008