I borrowed the following quote from a frequent commenter and contributer (Mynym) on my co-author’s site, Intelligent Design and More.
Richard Dawkins, easily the best-known spokesman for this movement, writes that ‘we are…robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes,’ and again that we are ‘manipulated in order to assure the survival of our genes.’ The same writer also says that ‘the fundamental truth [is] that an organism is a tool of DNA.’ (That is, of the DNA molecules which are the organism’s genes.) Again, Dawkins says that ‘living organisms exist for the benefit of DNA.’ Similarly, E.O. Wilson, an equal or higher sociobiological authority, says that ‘the individual organism is only the vehicle [of genes], part of an elaborate device to preserve and spread them….The organism is only DNA’s way of making more DNA.’
I will mention in a moment some other passages in which sociobiologists imply that genes are beings of more than human intelligence and power, but that implication should be clear enough already from the passages just quoted. According to the Christian religion, human beings and all other created things exist for the greater glory of God; according to sociobiology, human beings and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes.
(Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove: 248-249)
If this article is true and man is the only judge of truth and justice (and this present life is all there is), then why not choose to eat, drink and be merry and do as we please? If this is all there is to life, and it all came about by chance, why then be concerned about our actions negatively affecting others? Why should I sense any responsibility towards others when they‘re just a chance-happening, or exist to serve their genes, just like me? Why, according to this perverse and blind atheistic view, should I, or anyone else, have any moral sense at all?
* “Thus when the atheist rejects God while insisting on the validity of morality, he is merely rejecting the cause while clinging to the effect.
Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings happen to favor either because of their genetic makeup or conventional accords. There is no action that is objectively right or wrong. Rape, hate, murder and other such acts are only wrong because they have been deemed to be so in the course of human evolution.” (J.M. Njoroge: The New Atheism and Morality)
According to these socio-biologists, we came about by chance and will die by chance, that’s just the luck of the draw and nothing more. Where is the moral imperative to protect and respect life in that scenario? Is this the definition of a “precious life,” which everyone claims, including the hypocritical, atheistic naturalist? Where is the “sanctity of life” in believing we’re merely the product of a “Big Bang,” chemically induced, evolutionary process, which happened by chance as opposed to intelligent design? This isn’t a definition of human life that I can respect.
If we’re just chemically driven genes, which have come together by accident and/or mutation, then we’re no different or better than an amoeba or bacterium. Do any of us lay awake at night and feeling guilty, because we have killed bacteria in our homes? Do amoebas and bacteria have a conscience, do they have a set of “moral” imperatives to live by? Life, according to this confused, scientific hypothesis, amounts to nothing more than a roll of the evolutionary dice. Why would I, or anyone else, consider human life precious on this basis?
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3: 1-5)
The serpent’s lie was this: First, Adam and Eve would not “be like God!” Any created thing may be made in the image of its creator, but that doesn’t make the created thing “like” the creator: consider a self portrait, a statue etc. It’s a matter of sovereignty! And secondly, they would become aware of good and evil, but, unlike God, they would have no power to deal with it!
We only can discern the difference between good and evil (morality), because of God!
This same lie, of the serpent (Satan), is now embedded in atheistic, material science, and it’s affect is just as manipulative and strong! Oh yes, the serpent is still alive and well, and, in some cases, he is wearing a lab coat!
* via The New Atheism and Morality.
Tags: atheism, E O Wilson, God, Richard Dawkins, sociobiology
December 14th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Why should one believe that morality needs to have any sort of “basis” at all? What’s the difference between morality with a “basis” and morality without?
It seems to me that the very notion of a “basis” to morality isn’t as interesting as it’s made out to be. Let’s consider a politically sensitive and emotionally charged issue, such as whether or not abortion should be legal. Clearly there are all sorts of views on the matter. Now, suppose there’s no “basis” to morality — well then, the situation would be — exactly as it is, with a lot of heated disagreement and argument.
Well then: suppose that there is a “basis” to morality — what then? Then the situation would still be exactly as it is — because whether or not to agree to some putative basis for moral decision-making would itself be a matter of contention, disagreement, and argument.
In short, then, I don’t see what difference is made in practice as to whether there is a basis to morality or not.
December 14th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I’m sure that you don’t, Carl. Your argument above, however, has no affect on what I believe to be true. Not all of us take part in the relativistic world, where is everything is up for grabs: the make-it-up-as-we-go world!
Once again, we’ll have to disagree!
December 14th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Carl, relative morality is fine, as long as it is admitted that everyone is right and nobody is wrong. That’s when it comes down to might makes right. It comes down to Power. Because there is no other authority by which to condemn. Thus: The A’s are “wrong” and the B’s are “right” because the B’s have crushed the A’s and killed them all.
Carl, you might want to consider the conditions necessary for the ‘matters of contention, disagreement, and argument’ that you uphold as a positive means of social discourse in a civilized society. My view is that those things can only thrive as long as moral relativity is avoided!
We may disagree on matters of right and wrong, but as long as we all admit that there is a true right and a wrong to be found, we can endeavor into debating it. Because even if the A’s think the B’s are wrong, the A’s also know it would be truly wrong to kill all the B’s because of it.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I’m not arguing for or against “moral relativism.” I couldn’t care less one way or the other. I have set about to purge from my thinking all “isms” to the furthest extent possible.
What I was interested in doing is turning away from arguments about isms and towards paying close attention to the rich texture of moral discussions and disagreements — in order to find out what difference is made to those discussions and disagreements if there is, or is not, a “basis” for morality.
It is not even clear to me what a “basis” for morality is. A basis for an inference, proof, or theory, I understand well enough, but it seems to me a terrible mistake to think of morality as a deductive system or as an empirical theory.