Dershowitz on Atheism & Morality

[Tiassa]

From a Beliefnet article

For most people, the question why be good--as distinguished from merely law abiding--is a simple one. Because God commands it, because the Bible requires it, because good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell. The vast majority of people derive their morality from religion.

It's a simple proposition. It is here that I start examining what seems to be a massive error on Alan Dershowitz' part. The famed lawyer's book Letters to a Young Lawyer (title taken from the compiled letters of Rilke to Kauppus--Letters to a Young Poet) has been excerpted at Beliefnet. The article headline notes, Why be a Good Person? and goes on to note: "The superlawyer argues that the only truly moral person is the atheist who behaves well."

By and large the article regards an oft-floated assertion that atheism results in a lack of morality. The underlying theme reflects the counterpoint against atheism equalling a lack of morality.

Even the skeptic might be inclined to resolve doubts in favor of obeying religious commands. As Pascal put it more than three hundred years ago: “You must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”

This is the underlying fault of the theistic (usually American Christian) assertion against atheism. The theistic morality that rises in a redemptionist structure necessarily reflects the extortion process at work.. As Dershowitz notes:

I have always considered “Pascal’s Wager” as a questionable bet to place, since any God worth believing in would prefer an honest agnostic to a calculating hypocrite. To profess belief on a cost-benefit analysis is to trivialize religion. Consider, for example, the decision of Thomas More to face earthly execution rather than eternal damnation. When the king commands one action and God commands another, a believer has no choice.

Any questions about the failure of Pascal's Wager, then?

Nor is this question applicable only to Christian believers. I have wondered why Jews praise Abraham for his willingness to murder his son when God commanded it. A true hero who believed in a God who rewards and punishes would have resisted that unjust command and risked God’s wrath, just as a true hero would have refused God’s order to murder “heathen” women and children during the barbaric crusades.

We must remember to be fair in this criticism. I hope that Mr Dershowitz (and, through citation, I) has offered enough examples from this end.

Dershowitz does go on to examine more positive aspects of faith and morality:

The true hero--the truly good person--is the believer who risks an eternity in hell by refusing an unjust demand by God. The great 18th-century rabbi, Levi Isaac of Berdichev, was such a hero. He brought a religious lawsuit against God, and told God that he would refuse to obey any divine commands that endangered the welfare of the Jewish people.

By doing so, Levi Isaac may have risked divine punishment, but he acted heroically. He stood up to a God who he believed had the power to punish him but who he also believed was acting unjustly. In challenging God, he was following the tradition of the heroic Abraham, who argued with God over His willingness to sacrifice the innocent along with the guilty of Sodom, rather than the example of the compliant Abraham, who willingly obeyed God’s unjust command to sacrifice the innocent Isaac (or the ultimately compliant Job who apologizes to God for doubting His justice, after God had indeed acted unjustly by killing Job’s children just to prove a point to the devil.)

The specific problem:

This then is the conundrum of judging goodness in a religious person who believes in divine reward and punishment. Those religious leaders who select martyrs and saints cannot have it both ways. They cannot declare someone to be both a hero and a believer, because the two honors are logically inconsistent.

So far, I would think that none of this comes as a shock to anyone who follows Sciforums' religious debates.

But what about atheists, agnostics, or other individuals who make moral decisions without regard to any God or any promise or threat of the hereafter? Why should such people be moral? Why should they develop a good character? Why should they not simply do what is best for them?

Nor should this bit. Here we find the crux of the confusion among many theists regarding atheism and morality. At its base, with political sentiments removed, it is a fair question. There is no demonstrable or objective basis to any morality.

Even if there are no heaven and hell, there are good reasons for human beings to do better than merely be happy.

For instance, I would ask Mr Dershowitz exactly what those good reasons are, and whether they are any more or less subjective than believing in God.

There is a wonderful Hasidic story about a rabbi who was asked whether it is ever proper to act as if God did not exist. He responded, “Yes, when you are asked to give to charity, you should give as if there were no God to help the object of the charity.”

I think the same is true of morality and character: in deciding what course of action is moral, you should act as if there were no God. You should also act as if there were no threat of earthly punishment or reward. You should be a person of good character because it is right to be such a person.

And here we hit the crux of the positive identification.

What then is the content of good character in a world without the threat of divine or earthly punishment and without the promise of divine or earthly reward? In such a world every good act would be done simply because it was deemed by the actor to be good. Good character in such a world would involve striking an appropriate balance among often competing interests, such as the interests of oneself and of others, of the present and of the future, of one’s family (tribe, race, gender, religion, nation, and so forth) and of strangers.

It seems easy enough, doesn't it? I will, however, throw the monkey at the wrench and point out the presupposition that these things are "good".

The great Rabbi Hillel put it well when he said: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me, but if I am for myself alone, what am I?”

Hillel, incidentally, is responsible for what is often called the "Negative" Golden Rule, and is often considered to be the source of what we have come to recognize as the Golden Rule. I like this particular quote Mr Dershowitz has included because most Americans are well aware of the first part of that idea, but we often forsake the second part.

However, I must admit that when I saw the article at Beliefnet, it instantly brought a smile to my face because here, once again, we see atheism presented in its most logical form. The subjective presumption, the putting-of-the-foot, and so forth stops right there: if one does "good" because one believes one must, is it truly good? As a pacifist, I think of the reasons I might have to go to war. Because God says so is a stupid reason, but if the barbarians are in the streets, you do what you must. Likewise, if my country calls me to war, it better be for a damn good reason. State is as ridiculous and burdensome a myth as most religions make of God. Of course, as with God, there is a condition of state that is not actualized in life. However, this is beside the point and can wait for another day.

In the end, though, what I'm left looking at is further evidence supporting the notion of logical atheism, whereby the atheist conclusion--being logical--leads the atheist to build a logical worldview, and, thereby, a logical morality. In this sense, it is sad to say that Mr Dershowitz is in error. On the one hand, the notion of what is moral is quite subjective. To the other, if a true sense of morality arises from unfettered, logical constructions, we might reinforce concerns about atheism and morality, for atheists, despite the potential, choose more often than not to bear an arbitrary atheism, one which reaches a logical conclusion because of an illogical will to do so. Were that will logical, we would see an accompanying rejection of other myths, a rejection that is clearly not in evidence.

A keen example of the logical constructions that can result from atheism comes when Mr Dershowitz writes of striking an appropriate balance among often competing interests, such as the interests of oneself and of others, of the present and of the future, of one’s family (tribe, race, gender, religion, nation, and so forth) and of strangers. Logically speaking, in a culture such as the American, a person can choose a self-interest that eventually becomes detrimental--such as we see on the one hand in certain Enron and Worldcomm (and Xerox) executives, as well as in less blatant manifestations of that interest and detriment.

Specifically, at this point, does anyone want to argue against the notion that too much of a thing can be bad for you? Capitalism: what happens if you so dominate the market that there is no viable market left? Cutthroat finances and most-toys-wins philosophies seem reasonable in the short term, but invite huge long-term problems. Kind of like that Marx bit: if you pass a law to hang all the Capitalists, they will sell you the rope. Acting so in your own interpretation of your own interest (I can corner the rope market!) can be bad for you. Thus, a balance is struck between, as Mr Dershowitz has noted, interests of oneself and of others, of the present and the future, of one's family and of strangers.

I point again to a comparison of the Wiccan Rede and the Law of Thelema as a wonderful, analogous comparison. (Now then, the point is not to argue the validity of one or the other or both, but to point out a specific relationship 'twixt the two creeds.)

• Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. (Thelema)
• An thou harm none, do what thou wilt. (Rede)

Both of these principles regard the balance proposed by Mr Dershowitz. Both are religious interpretations of that balance. The only functional difference between the Rede and the Law of Thelema is that one (Thelema) presumes that you already understand what is specified in the other. That is, An thou harm none is a general rule which is already inherent in Thelema. So to look at the situation, one implies restraint, the other demands it. (Any attempt to separate Thelema from its implication of "harmlessness" would be irresponsible. Hedonists of many brands have tried to justify themselves using Crowley. Few if any of them have succeeded.)

But ... since Mr Dershowitz is referring to an idea which has been called erroneous (the attachment of logical responsibility and need to atheism), I'm curious as to the atheists' perspectives. On the one hand, I would love to point to this article and explain to theists that this is the issue of theism versus atheism, but it is not because atheists have told me that such an expectation as an atheism that behaves as Mr Dershowitz has described is, in fact, an erroneous expectation.

Thus I'm left wondering what Dershowitz is talking about, and wondering if atheism as an idea is so insecure that it must misrepresent itself in search of justification. Of course, he's also erroneous when he points out that good character consists of recognizing the selfishness that inheres in each of us and trying to balance it against the altruism to which we should all aspire. There is no good character, is there? Upon what do we base the assessment? What makes that assessment proper or correct?

It's too bad. Other than the fact that it examines a castle in the sky, I found it a very enlightening article.

thanx much,
Tiassa