• Home
  • About us
  • Contact Us
  • Date/Time
  • Login
  • Subscribe

logo

  • Home
  • Politics
  • Economics & Finance
  • World
  • Arts & Books
  • Life
  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Subscribe
  • Events
Home
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • Politics
  • Economics & Finance
  • World
  • Arts & Books
  • Life
  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Subscribe
  • Events
  • Home
  • Magazine

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
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Email

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 stern secularist eyes this is not something of which to be proud.

George Levine has put together a diverse collection on what it means to be a secularist, with thoughtful essays from philosophers, historians, literary critics, and evolutionary theorists. The result is an effort to get beyond the polarisation between strident religionists and their strident opponents. The publishers describe it as arguing that secularism “presents a vision of a natural and difficult world—without miracles or supernatural interventions—that is far richer and more satisfying than the religious one beyond.” This implies that all religions involve belief in more than one world, which may be true in America, but probably rules out most of the Church of England.

Among the essayists, Bruce Robbins voices especially bracing mistrust of enchantments themselves. Philip Kitcher gives a lucid account of the political and moral obligations that secularists must acknowledge. Frans de Waal rehearses his well-known discoveries of embryonic moral interactions between other primates than ourselves. David Sloan Wilson’s contribution, “The Truth is Sacred,” is particularly interesting as an example of the way in which evolutionary theory has enthusiastically, if belatedly, taken up the phenomena of culture. The essays are literate and sophisticated, although there is an air of high-minded protestation, so that the authors resemble partygoers continually reassuring their host that they are really, really enjoying themselves.

Such tact does not much trouble Sam Harris, a knockabout atheist. He holds that “questions about values—about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose—are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood.” His idea is that with sufficient knowledge, and generous help from neuroscience, we can learn to gauge “wellbeing” and then it is just a technical question of how to maximise it. Not only religion, but moral philosophy with its dilemmas and conflicts, is unnecessary, now that we can observe and calculate. On the dust-jacket, Richard Dawkins enthusiastically endorses the same triumphalist line.

It is one thing to say that behaving well requires knowledge. It clearly does, and the more we know about the world the better (and worse) we can behave in it. But it is quite another thing to think of “science” as taking over the entire domain of morality, and that there is a reason that it cannot do so. While it is one thing to know the empirical facts, it is another to select and prioritise and campaign and sacrifice to promote some and diminish others.

Aristotle himself thought that ethics concerned wellbeing. But he appreciated, as Harris does not, the twists and turns involved in that simple sounding idea. According to Aristotle, wellbeing is the state of living well, in favourable relationships with the world around one. My successes and failures, knowledge, social relations, memories, hopes, fears and loves make up my wellbeing. This could not be indexed by a brain scanner, which would be insensitive to the difference between a person in a fool’s paradise, largely deceived about his relations with the world, and a person who has got them right.

Harris’s view of wellbeing is nearer to that of Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, who saw it as a simple balance of pleasure over pain. Perhaps sufficient knowledge of the state of someone’s brain could help to measure this ratio, and it would no doubt be quite high for the citizens in Brave New World. But in spite of Dawkins’s enthusiasm, that does not really help, for if Bentham’s hedonist is in one brain state and Aristotle’s active subject is in another, as no doubt they would be, it is a moral, not an empirical, problem to say which is to be preferred. Even if this were solved, how are we to balance my right to pursue my wellbeing against the demand to help maximise that of everyone? Striving to maximise the sum of human wellbeing is making oneself a servant of the world, and it cannot be science that tells me to do that, nor how to solve the conflict, which was central, for instance, to the utilitarian thinking of Henry Sidgwick. Harris considers none of all this, and thereby joins the prodigious ranks of those whose claim to have transcended philosophy is just an instance of their doing it very badly.

Religionists often try to claim meaning and morality as their own private property. The standard secularist will reply that this is so far from the truth that religion cannot even claim a proper share of them. For example, if religion’s contribution to morality is, at base, a matter of bribing us to behave well for fear of supernatural consequences, then it is only a poor substitute for the real thing—like Kant’s shopkeeper giving the right change only because he was afraid of being caught cheating. Such action may accord with a principle of honesty, but he is not acting from that principle, which is what the properly moral person does. I help my child with his homework because he needs help, not to obey the dictates of a supernatural commandant.

The sophisticated religionist will reply that it is not like this: God’s schedule of rewards and punishments is for teaching purposes, “leading strings” as Kant called them, pulling the child, say, towards concern for the helpless. The end-product is the love of others, and the love of principle and justice. Perhaps so, but in that case religious hopes and terrors have nothing essential to do with the motives of morality, any more than parental admonitions, even if they too were accompanied with threats of hellfire.

With meaning we have the same opposition. Faced with the night sky, Darwin’s entangled bank, or the newborn baby, the secularist’s feelings of awe or wonder are directed where they should be: at the sky, the bank, or the baby. His attention does not stray to thinking about his own soul, or the purposes of providence, although he may entertain thoughts about our small place in the vast deserts of space and time. If someone cannot find meaning in the baby’s smile because it is so small in comparison with the cosmos, or because it is not going to last forever, then he is to be pitied, not admired as especially spiritual.

Morality is a natural phenomenon. Its roots lie in our needs and our capacities for sympathetically imagining the feelings of others, for inventing co-operative principles, for being able to take an impersonal view of our own doings. We have what Adam Smith called a “man within the breast” monitoring our feelings and actions in the name of those with whom we live. Imagining their admiration, we feel pride; imagining their anger, guilt, their contempt, shame. In his essay “Disenchantment—Reenchantment” in The Joy of Secularism, the philosopher Charles Taylor says that this does not explain what he calls “strong evaluations,” which are cases in which we feel that there is a truth about the matter, or that in valuing something we are not simply projecting attitude and desire, but are getting something right.

The phenomenon is real enough, but it is naturally explicable. Some concerns are nearer to our cores than others. If I prefer strawberry ice cream to chocolate, I would not think less well of you if you prefer the opposite. Nor would I be distressed to learn that one day I might change my mind. But if we visit the Grand Canyon and I am overawed by its grandeur, while you see it just as a good place for tourist concessions, then I may well think less of you. And if I learn that one day I shall become like you, I would be depressed and ashamed, just as I would if I learned that one day I might lose my love of my children, or my concern for truth. I may voice this by saying that the canyon demands the reaction of wonder. But of course it doesn’t issue any demands— indeed its ageless, implacable, indifferent silence is part of what makes it sublime. It is we who demand these reactions from ourselves and others, and rightly so. Admiring the canyon is better than admiring gods, for they, being human creations, suffer from all kinds of nasty traits, where it does not.

 

Go to comments

Related articles

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
Driverless cars and a new kind of “trolley problem”
Philip Ball / November 16, 2018
Autonomous vehicles force us to confront profound philosophical questions 
Share with friends
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Email

Comments

  1. 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.
  2. Kim
    April 13, 2011 at 22:09
    Insightful comment DeBare, I particularly like the way you keep your thoughts relevant to the original article.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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!"
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

Prospect's free newsletter

The big ideas that are shaping our world—straight to your inbox. PLUS a free e-book and 7 articles of your choosing on the Prospect website.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information. Click here to learn more about these purposes and how we use your data. You will be able to opt-out of further contact on the next page and in all our communications.

This Month's Magazine

Perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus.

Prospect is the leading magazine of ideas. Each month it is packed with the finest writing on politics, culture, economics and ideas. Subscribe today and join the debate.

Subscribe

Most Popular

  • Read
  • Commented

The invigorating strangeness of Friedrich Nietzsche

The naïve optimism of Liam Fox

Why I bet £1000 that a no-deal Brexit will trigger recession

Labour's Remainers could be a ticking time bomb for the party

The Duel: Has modern architecture ruined Britain?

Ruling out no deal is the wrong sort of red line

6 Comments

The Conservative Party has a problem—it’s no longer conservative

5 Comments

The overlooked dynamic at the heart of the Brexit “culture war”

2 Comments

Arlene Foster’s DUP still holds the balance of power in Westminster—so what’s their next move?

2 Comments

The impact of Brexit on services has not received nearly enough attention

2 Comments

About this author

Simon Blackburn
Simon Blackburn is a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge and a Research Professor in philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
More by this author

More by Simon Blackburn

There's nothing new about post-truth politics
June 20, 2017
After relativism
May 9, 2013
How full is the glass?
August 25, 2010

Next Prospect events

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Diarmaid MacCulloch

    London, 2019-05-20

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Sue Prideaux

    2019-04-15

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Andrew Roberts

    2019-03-14

See more events

Sponsored features

  • Reforming the pension system to work for the many

  • Putting savers in the driving seat: getting the pensions dashboard right

  • To fix the housing crisis we need fresh thinking

  • Tata Steel UK: Driving innovation for the future of mobility

  • The road to zero

PrimeTime

The magazine is owned and supported by the Resolution Group, as part of its not-for-profit, public interest activities.

Follow us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • RSS

Editorial

Editor: Tom Clark
Deputy Editor: Steve Bloomfield
Managing Editor (Arts & Books): Sameer Rahim
Head of Digital: Stephanie Boland
Deputy Digital Editor (Political Correspondent): Alex Dean
Creative Director: Mike Turner
Production Editor & Designer: Chris Tilbury
US Writer-at-Large: Sam Tanenhaus

Commercial

Commercial Director: Alex Stevenson
Head of Marketing: Paul Mortimer
Marketing and Circulations Executive: James Hawkins
Programme Coordinator: Oliver James Ward
Head of Advertising Sales: Adam Kinlan 020 3372 2934
Senior Account Manager: Dominic Slonecki 0203 372 2972

  • Home
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Acceptable Use Policy
© Prospect Publishing Limited
×
Login
Login with your subscriber account:
You need a valid subscription to login.
I am
Remember Me


Forgotten password?

Or enter with social networking:
Login to post comments using social media accounts.
  • With Twitter
  • Connect
  • With Google +
×
Register Now

Register today and access any 7 articles on the Prospect’s website for FREE in the next 30 days..
PLUS find out about the big ideas that will shape our world—with Prospect’s FREE newsletter sent to your inbox. We'll even send you our e-book—Writing with punch—with some of the finest writing from the Prospect archive, at no extra cost!

Not Now, Thanks

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.

×
You’ve got full access!

It looks like you are a Prospect subscriber.

Prospect subscribers have full access to all the great content on our website, including our entire archive.

If you do not know your login details, simply close this pop-up and click 'Login' on the black bar at the top of the screen, then click 'Forgotten password?', enter your email address and press 'Submit'. Your password will then be emailed to you.

Thank you for your support of Prospect and we hope that you enjoy everything the site has to offer.

This site uses cookies to improve the user experience. By using this site, you agree that we can set and use these cookies. For more details on the cookies we use and how to manage them, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy.