I am still reading “The God Delusion” and have gotten to the part where Dawkins discusses whether gods are required for humans to have morality. He argues that humans have evolved moral intuitions as social reciprocators and that it is unnecessary to invoke gods. I agree, especially when I observe that religious folks are just as apt or more apt to kill or rob me as or than atheists.
I have had religious people try to justify their faith on the basis that without their deity there would be nothing to stop them from being murderers. Scary, isn’t it? I suspect that most folks reckon that, while they themselves would still be good even if their god turned out not to exist, other people need the fear of divine retribution to keep them in line. Perhaps it is true that some antisocial bastards are kept under control mainly out of such a fear, but that is hardly an argument for the proposition that the deity that they fear actually exists. It’s an argument for using religion as a mechanism for social control, not an argument for the truth of religious propositions.
Some folks have argued that it would not be fair if their god did not exist so as to punish folks who get away with stuff in this life. They can’t stand it that some sinner might not get his eternal comeuppance. Then again, what if their god exists but doesn’t mete out boons and torments to their liking? Would that be fair? I don’t reckon that there is any requirement for the universe to be “fair”, so I don’t see this a valid argument for the existence of gods.
If I read my mythology right, most gods have never been in the business of rewarding good and punishing evil. This seems to be a relatively recent addition to the divine job description.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment