Dawkins: Religion no moral compass

[rug]

GPS digital producer Jason Miks sits down with renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the Selfish Gene and An Appetite for Wonder, to discuss readers’ questions on religion, its role in society and whether children can be described as “Christian.”

September 27th, 2013
05:53 PM ET
By Jason Miks

A number of readers noting your skepticism over religion’s role in society ask whether an absence of religion would leave us without a moral compass?

The very idea that we get a moral compass from religion is horrible. Not only should we not get our moral compass from religion, as a matter of fact we don’t. We shouldn’t, because if you actually look at the bible or the Koran, and get your moral compass from there, it’s horrible – stoning people to death, stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.

Now of course we don’t do that anymore, but the reason we don’t do it is that we pick out those verses of the bible that we like, and reject those verses we don’t like. What criteria do we use to pick out the good ones and reject the bad ones? Non-biblical criteria, non-religious criteria. The same criteria as guide any modern person in their moral compass that has nothing to do with religion.

So the moral compass of any person is very much a part of the century or even the decade in which they happen to live, regardless of their religion. So we live in the early 21st century, and our moral compass in the early 21st century is quite different from 100 years ago, or 200 years ago. We are now much less racist than they were, much less sexist than they were. We are much kinder than non-human animals than they were – all sorts of respects in which we are labeled with a moral compass. So something has changed, and it certainly has nothing to do with religion.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/dawkins-religion-no-moral-compass/

[Squinch]

1. I am not an athiest, but I agree that religion does not give people a moral compass.

People adjust their religions to fit the moral compass they already have.

[msongs]

2. history shows people with religion are pretty much responsible for the worst immorality nt

[rug]

5. That's not surprising given that most people in history came "with" a religion.

The question is whether the "worst immorality" is because of religion. Or not.

[Humanist_Activist]

3. I like how the comments below the article confirm his point. n/t

[JEFF9K]

4. "Moral compass" is a marketing gimmick for organized religion.

[longship]

6. This is why I defend Richard Dawkins.

Because he is often right on the target. It's also why I do not get my shorts in a bunch when he says things which seem to be weird. I can dismiss those things and yet defend his general position on religion.

In this case, he hits the nail on the head.

Morality is a cultural construct, outside of religion (which is itself a cultural construct). Both evolve as culture evolves. Their may be evolutionary underpinnings to both morality and religion, but it's not likely that those underpinnings would be the same for both (not that I wish to let evolutionary psychology rear it's head here).

[LostOne4Ever]

7. If we got our moral compass from religion

Then I would figure that only the one true religion would be moral. Yet, we have moral Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhist, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists.

But lets go beyond that. If morality comes from religion then we would assume that all animals would be amoral would we not? They couldn't even be influenced by religion. So what do we find in the animal kingdom?

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html

I think we can say the morals come from religion argument has been refuted

[rug]

8. Well . . . .

[LostOne4Ever]

9. Gotta love them big kitty cats!

[rug]

10. He didn't even make a ripple in the water.

[haikugal]

11. Amazing!

What a beautiful big cat...

I love Dawkins and I'm glad anytime he's mentioned.

[struggle4progress]

12. Dawkins has become something of a one-trick pony, preaching to his choir. I notice

that the article contains nothing whatsoever about what Dawkins thinks a moral compass might be, and what he derives from his own: that might actually be interesting, and might provide the basis for a conversation that does more than rumble down well-worn ruts -- which would, at least, be something more than we can reasonably expect from this now-highly-predictable chatter

[eomer]

13. The interviewer moved on to other topics. Dawkins would have been happy to answer your question:

"We are the 21st century moralists and atheists," Dawkins told listeners Tuesday, according to Indo-Asian News Service.
"We don't need to get morals from our religions ... We don't want to find morals from the holy books. We can have our own enlightened secular values," he emphasized, referring to the Humanist Manifesto III, a document outlining the conceptual boundaries of humanism, published by the American Humanist Association, of which Dawkins was a signatory.

http://m.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-morals-come-from-enlightened-secular-values-not-religion--67883/

Humanist Manifesto III

-snip

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

-snip

http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III