Words'nTone

I was letting my daughter and stepson get some books at Borders one afternoon—my mom gave me a gift card to use, some of which was to be spent on my kids (of course).  I started browsing Richard Hawkins’ new book, The God Delusions.  Even after the first page, I wanted to start replying to his straw-men, false assertions about Christianity and the Bible, as well as his horrible use of logic.  I bought the book—at least it was 30% off!  So I respond to the one area I find most vulnerable to Western Atheists: the question of a basis for morals, moral assertions, and doing good.  Richard Dawkins entitles one of his chapters, “If there is no God, why be good?” This actually seems like a good question.  And, he rightly sets up the debate, really the potential answers to this question:  If you are being good to gain God’s approval or reward or to avoid his disapproval and punishment, that’s not morality, that’s just “sucking up.” Silly argument, really.  I taught logic and debate and critical thinking at the college level and one of the most important things one needs to do is define terms, and those definitions need to be agreed upon by all sides, and the definitions must, obviously, work in reality.  Dawkins makes an interesting proposition, albeit not so original: We do not need God to be good.  But there are so many problems, at so many levels, with this premise.  Nonetheless, despite its weaknesses, this premise is re-worded to be a question, and then used to smash Christians and their beliefs.  The question, at first glance, even seems reasonable.  So, if God doesn’t exist, would we be and do good?  Here are some random thoughts to highlight the weakness and logical fallacies in what this question assumes and seeks to imply:

The question itself is used to set up the believer with a catch 22 dilemma: Be good to please God and that’s sucking up; say no ‘I can be good without God’ and the Christian then defeats his or her own argument.  But the questioner must be questioned before an answer is given.  The question is wrong from the start.  It is not that we need God to be good or do good.  Atheists can and do good, as I imagine that criminals, the insane, and even cannibals do good at times as well.  This is one significant place—really only one of many places in his arguments—Dawkin gets it wrong: We do not need God or even a belief in a god to do good.  (That’s a no brainer.) But we do need God to define what good is.  (I’d even say for argument sake, we need some objective, ultimate Being—but that’s further down the road for this argument.) This the atheist’s problem.

The question is better put, “If there is no God, is there ‘good’?  And, to push it a little further, more personal, more practical, “whose ‘good’ is Dawkins talking about—his own, Hitler’s, Gandhi’s, Mother Theresa’s, my teenager’s?  Whose?  We need God, not just to have a reason to be good, but to know what good to be or do.  Richard Dawkins is clever enough not to develop his moral basis and foundation for defining good because in doing so he must borrow from his rejected Christian worldview.  Additionally, I’d even say, what’s wrong with being good or doing good for someone else?  My daughter does things to receive my affirmation or approval or even sometimes for reward, as I do for my wife, and for my own mother (sometimes).  Such action does not always imply a negative.  I love my daughter no matter what she does.  But what’s wrong with her loving me and wanting to do things for reward or affirmation?  Dawkins will have to give us some reasons why that’s so wrong anyway—he does not offer one reason on that assertion of his.  And maybe I want God’s approval.  If Dawkins is advocating a truly altruistic human existence, he is delusional himself.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.