A new advertising campaign by the Coalition of Reason (CoR) began recently in Little Rock. These ads are a part of a nationwide campaign that has used the same and similar ads on buses and billboards across America. The Little Rock ad asks, “Are you good without God? Millions are.” The statement seems simple enough on the first read, but clarity is needed. What is meant by the phrase “without God”? It is possible that CoR uses this phrase to convey “without a belief in God who does actually exist”. It is doubtful, however, that this interpretation is correct. “Without the existence of God” is more likely what is intended. If that is the case, then further questions need to be asked. What does CoR mean by “good”? Who gets to decide what is “good” and what is “bad”? Their website (accessed on 12 October 2011) states that the ad campaign’s purpose is simply to make those of a nontheist* persuasion aware that there are others of like mind in their area. If this was truly the only purpose for the campaign, one must ask why they do not simply use another version of their ads that states “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone.” The use of the Little Rock version indicates that CoR is also attempting to make a statement to the general public. CoR’s ad is making the claim that nontheists abide by a recognized standard of ethics. In order for this to mean anything worth saying, this recognized standard must be substantive, not merely a changeable standard of preference.
CoR does not indicate how they or others should answer the questions surrounding the origin of ethics. Based on previous exchanges with nontheists, CoR would most likely trace the origin of ethics to 1) societal contract, 2) societal evolution, 3) biological evolution, or 4) majority vote. The problem with these solutions is that right and wrong become relative—not absolute. So the act of rape under these systems is wrong because 1) society collectively agrees that it is wrong, 2) societies have learned over time that rape is wrong, 3) our genetic makeup has programmed us to think that rape is wrong, or 4) the strongest or most numerous have forced the weaker or less numerous to accept it as wrong. Notice that in all of the above scenarios, there is nothing absolutely wrong with rape. It is either wrong by convention or by genetics. To understand what it means for something to be wrong by convention, think of parliamentary rules. At certain times under parliamentary proceedings it is wrong to talk while at other times it is permissible. There is nothing absolutely wrong with talking; one must simply follow the agreed to rules. On the other hand, rape could be considered wrong simply because of a biological predisposition. If this is the case, what should happen to those who do commit rape? Should they be punished? Are they not simply following their own, albeit different, genetic makeup? Biologically, the inclination to commit rape could most certainly be thought of as a mechanism to pass on one’s genes. In fact, males of the lion species (and males of other species) regularly take over a pride by killing the current dominant male, killing the cubs from the former male, and mating with the females to produce new offspring. This ensures that the new dominant lion’s genes are passed to the next generation. Obviously, this behavior is not tolerated for humans. One must ask why it isn’t if biological evolution is the source of ethics.
CoR does not indicate how they or others should answer the questions surrounding the origin of ethics. Based on previous exchanges with nontheists, CoR would most likely trace the origin of ethics to 1) societal contract, 2) societal evolution, 3) biological evolution, or 4) majority vote. The problem with these solutions is that right and wrong become relative—not absolute. So the act of rape under these systems is wrong because 1) society collectively agrees that it is wrong, 2) societies have learned over time that rape is wrong, 3) our genetic makeup has programmed us to think that rape is wrong, or 4) the strongest or most numerous have forced the weaker or less numerous to accept it as wrong. Notice that in all of the above scenarios, there is nothing absolutely wrong with rape. It is either wrong by convention or by genetics. To understand what it means for something to be wrong by convention, think of parliamentary rules. At certain times under parliamentary proceedings it is wrong to talk while at other times it is permissible. There is nothing absolutely wrong with talking; one must simply follow the agreed to rules. On the other hand, rape could be considered wrong simply because of a biological predisposition. If this is the case, what should happen to those who do commit rape? Should they be punished? Are they not simply following their own, albeit different, genetic makeup? Biologically, the inclination to commit rape could most certainly be thought of as a mechanism to pass on one’s genes. In fact, males of the lion species (and males of other species) regularly take over a pride by killing the current dominant male, killing the cubs from the former male, and mating with the females to produce new offspring. This ensures that the new dominant lion’s genes are passed to the next generation. Obviously, this behavior is not tolerated for humans. One must ask why it isn’t if biological evolution is the source of ethics.
When defending turf under pressure, nontheists who use one of the above explanations for ethics will admit that these explanations result in a relativistic view of ethics. In fact, two nontheist in a recent conversation relented that they had no real basis on which to claim that slavery (as it existed in the 19th century) and the holocaust were wrong. Nontheists, however, notoriously sneak the objective sense of ethics back into their conversation without realizing it. This is exactly what the CoR ads do when they use the term “good”. When this is pointed out, nontheists unknowingly cloak the obvious ethical terms in phrases such as “living peaceably” and “loving others”. This change up simply swaps out explicit ethical terms for implicit ethical terms. One only needs to ask the opening questions again. What makes living peaceably or loving others something to strive for (i.e., “good”)? Most assuredly there are good, ethical nontheists in society, but they are good in spite of their claim that God does not exist. Further, they borrow their universal view of “good” from a theistic worldview. This occurs even when they disagree with a theist on what is “good”.
If ethics are relative, what is right and wrong reduces down to preference. That preference can be at a genetic, individual, or societal level, but in the end it is a preference. This reduction to preference makes the questions “Is rape wrong or right?” and “Is chocolate ice cream better than vanilla?” functionally equivalent. No one, theist or nontheist, lives this way even when they claim that they do.
In the end, the way CoR uses “good” merely reinforces a theistic worldview—an unintended consequence for sure. Finally, the above lines of reason do not attempt to prove or disprove either theism or nontheism. That is an entirely different discussion. The aim is to force nontheists to live within their own (untenable) worldview and to disabuse them of borrowing facets of a theistic worldview.
Postscript: CoR must also be asked what is meant by their own name. Is faith the opposite of reason? Is belief in God the opposite of rationality? The answer to both of these questions is “no”. The opposite of faith or belief is simply non-belief. The opposite of reason or rationality is irrationality. On the CoR website, several groups are listed who could join a Community of Reason*. Among those listed are a “freethought (sic)” and a skeptic. Must one believe in the nonexistence of God in order to be skeptical or freethinking? Normally, a skeptic is one who demands proof, and a freethinker is one who carefully examines others’ views. So, if one takes the plain sense of these words, there can be a closed minded nontheist and a freethinking theist. There can likewise be an irrational nontheist (one who holds to nontheism for poor reasons) and a rational theist (one who holds to theism for good reasons).
*In order to keep with CoR’s terminology, the term “nontheist” and its variants are used instead of “atheist” and/or agnostic. CoR’s website also defines a host of other names/groups that they consider to be within the “Community of Reason”.
1 comment:
BIIIIIIIIIIIG MAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHT!!!!!
Post a Comment