Morality without God

A new wave of secular books has challenged religion’s claim to supply meaning and morality. Simon Blackburn reflects on the root of human values

by Simon Blackburn / March 23, 2011 / Leave a comment

Published in April 2011 issue of Prospect Magazine

The Joy of Secularism: 11 Essays for how we live now
Ed George Levine, (Princeton University Press, £24.95)

The Moral Landscape
by Sam Harris, (Bantam Press, £20.00)

When the sociologist Max Weber wrote of the disenchantment of the modern world in the late 19th and early 20th century, he struck a loud and resonant chord. Just look at the dog-eat-dog, bureaucratic, soulless world we live in. Ugh! How pleasant to dream of something better: a magical world unfolding in providential ways: perplexing, perhaps, and sometimes sad, but in the end benign, good and safe. How nice as well to be part of a congregation or church, united in celebrating these venerable enchantments through rituals, poetry and music, all expressing awe and wonder, gratitude, hope and consolation. On the one hand, meaningless bustle, absurdity and despair; on the other, peace, warmth and comfort. If these are the alternatives, the surprise is not that religions refuse to die, but that they ever become sickly.

Let us say religionists are those who consider themselves to owe allegiance to a religion, and a secularist is anyone who isn’t a religionist. Religion is a many-faceted phenomenon, and any definition is bound to be contested. Religions do not require deities (at its purest Buddhism does not) nor even positive beliefs (the apophatic tradition holds that God is unapproachable by description). But it is characteristic of religionists to think their practices and thoughts give lives something valuable that cannot be found any other way.

Secularists, on the other hand, want to show that this is not an either/or, and that nothing of true value is lost when we grow out of reliance on old enchantments. I say true value, because everyone should admit there is a value in music and poetry, perhaps value in ritual, and a kind of value in myth and fiction. Outright falsehoods can be adaptive. Wishful thinking offers many comforts. But in…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

3195735515bf0711e768af9.98402205

Go to comments

Driverless cars: when a crash is unavoidable, who should they save?

Julian Baggini / November 13, 2018

The answers people give to this question can be both fascinating and disturbing

The problem with “multiverse theories”: they’re just not science

Jim Baggott / June 25, 2018

This admittedly catchy idea is undermining the integrity of physics

Share with friends

Comments

Rupert DeBare
April 8, 2011 at 17:02
A propos Anthony Grayling's assertion that calling him a fervent atheist is like accusing him of "sleeping furiously" (reported in the Guardian): Sleeping Furiously I’m quite pleased to hear that Mr Grayling is sleeping fitfully, but I do wish he’d stop snoring ! His specious little sound-bite similes insult our intelligence dreadfully, and are a slur on the reputation of British philosophy. When he suggests that calling him a fervent atheist is akin to calling someone “a fervent non-believer in stamp collecting”, one is tempted to add Bin Laden as a fervent non-believer in Western values, or even Hitler as a passionate non-believer in democracy. My comparison is invidious, but I trust it proves the absurdity of the slogan. When one of Britain’s most full-frontal, high-profile figures in the assault on religion – the author of a so-called “Secular bible (!)” -pretends not to be militantly atheist, I find my credulity stretched beyond reason. There will no doubt be people grateful for Grayling’s support for their godless cosmology, but they should ask themselves why the author seems so desperate to obscure the fact that his speculative belief in God’s non-existence is just as much a faith as the belief of the theist. It may be that Grayling presents some strong arguments in his new book, but on the basis of his much-quoted witticisms, I fear it will be strong on propaganda and weak on dialectic. I do not doubt the man’s intellectual competence, but I do not trust polemicists.
Kim
April 13, 2011 at 22:09
Insightful comment DeBare, I particularly like the way you keep your thoughts relevant to the original article.
Ramesh Raghuvanshi
April 15, 2011 at 16:23
Idea of God is not connected with morality.One thing we must remember we created to God,to overcome the fear of death.Today also when astronautics go to moon they take with them some omen or pray to God to return safe.I think idea of God never die till death is there and I think with the help of science we never conquer the death.If man become immortal there is no meaning to life.Really speaking only death giving meaning to our life.Idea of God there or not man behave good or bad it depend on circumstances, by nature man is irrational animal how he behave in particular circumstance he also don't predicate.
Recher
April 16, 2011 at 21:50
There is an inherent moral structure to the creation indpendent of human cultural values. Human consciousness has arrived where this innate moral structure is acted on in part but not understood at all. Is today's anti-slavery position cultural or in fact representaive of a true moral order? What about rape? What about the polite word 'extinction, which in today's world is the murder of one species by another
Recher
April 16, 2011 at 22:01
Ramesh Raghuvanshi says:One thing we must remember we created to God,to overcome the fear of death. NO NO NO--- that is a secondary outcome. God belief is first and foremost an attempt by ego to understand the world around it. Imagine the moment of ego's awkening. The consciousness that sets humans apart from all other Earth organisms. Humans are not only self-aware (like chimps, bonobos, etc) but are aware they are self aware! In making sense of the world around it the hypothesis of Gods to explain the creation would be a natural outcome. Imagine yourself as a peasant in 665AD Euroope. The idea that the stars were the firmament and that there ws a God and heaven beyond the blue sky is perfectly rational. Or that when you die your spirit moves into the trees. Konrad Lorenz provides the necessary perpective 'I have discovered the missing link between ape and civilized man. It is us!"
Ramesh Raghuvanshi
April 18, 2011 at 05:09
Recher, Everyman is unique so his concept open idea of God is different how can anybody discuss on this topic.What I learn ,experience that I expressed on my comment.
Ramesh Raghuvanshi
April 18, 2011 at 05:25
You blamed me as a racist for my comment but Sir,what I quoted Is taken from white man`s writing. Read another comment scholar of western man. HE SAYS "We some time forget that eugenics movement in the roots of western culture has long and unsavory history with deep roots in our culture." I can show you thousand comments of white learned men what they told about your culture and your psyche
John W
April 20, 2011 at 18:24
I don't know where this idea of "servant of the world" comes from. Harris is not suggesting that you dig into every corner and sacrifice yourself to make everyone maximally happy. His examples are just the opposite. He speaks of battery acid being thrown in little girls faces. Surely we can come up with easily agreed upon standards to eliminate that. Then we can go back to arguing about ethical dilemmas.
Peter
April 26, 2011 at 13:26
Interesting that you say "gods, being human creations, suffer from all kinds of nasty traits" which is true of all gods of human creation of course but entirely false if the "gods" you refer to include the God of the Bible who is neither a human creation nor has a single nasty trait.