Alex Rosenberg, philosophy professor at Duke, is throwing his hat into the atheist book club ring. But he says The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions, has something different to say:
“My book differs from all of them in that it is not another indictment of religion, not another brief on the irrationality of a belief in God, not another analysis of how religion seduces us into belief—those are the aims of three of the most popular books. My book is about what else we should believe now that we believe in atheism.”
But the most interesting claim he makes in this book interview at IndyWeek.com is this one:
“… the “new atheists,” like Sam Harris and [Daniel] Dennett and, to some extent, Dawkins think they can ground ethics on science, and they really can’t.”
Wait what? So how will we survive in a world without ethics?
“I think you have to adopt a position I call “nice nihilism.” “Nice” because that’s what the lesson of science explains, why we are nice, why we are cooperative—with the doubtful exception of a couple of psychopaths on one end of the extreme and Mother Teresa on the other—most people are cooperative, agreeable, moral, law-abiding people and we don’t need any further justification.”
The least persuasive discussion to me in the interview is his claim that the 5% of religious scientists and the 20% of agnostic ones claim Science and Religion can co-exist only to stave off funding cuts from religious-pandering politicians. I don’t doubt for a moment that pressure exists, but I also doubt scientists write books on the subject (as I believe he implies) in order to secure their funding.
The idea of nihilistic ethics fascinates me. I may have to add this book to the ‘ole book club roster. Do you think it’s possible to be a Nihilist and have ethics? Would they be personal ethics? Does his claim that science explains niceness, but cannot ground ethics, confuse anyone else?
Thanks for weighing in Mike. I need a crash course in ethics and the campfire would be the perfect setting!
Not to get all Nietzsche on you, but looking for science to provide an “objective” basis for ethics seems just as misguided as looking to “God” for an “objective” basis of ethics.
I will certainly keep an eye out for this book but I’m tempted to say that morality is independent of physics and metaphysics.
Hmm, my views on this are probably not summarizable in blog comment format. Next time we’re sitting around the campfire, let’s discuss.
Great points Luke. What you said there — the how versus why — reminded me of something Ken Wilber said once about why he feels being a spiritual person and a scientist makes sense (although it seems to many taboo). He detailed the importance of not confusing the how with the why.
“Does his claim that science explains niceness, but cannot ground ethics, confuse anyone else?”
-not really. Science does a great job at explaining the “how” of things. The field can explain “how” we’re nice and how we’re a social animal and the benefits of working together nicely with whatever label you want to put after it (nice nihilist, nice buddhist, nice christian, nice person, etc).
Religion attempts to explain the “why.” We’re nice because we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. Religion is prescriptive in a way that science can’t be. Religion, however, runs the risk of manipulating and controlling people in dangerous ways. The shadow-side is always active.
Hey Jamie! I felt like I got it too and suspect, since he’s a doctor of philosophy, his book might give a simplified lesson on different ethical stances like moral universalism, moral nihilism, moral relativism. I am always on the edge of wanting to dive into this stuff, but am sometimes afraid the rabbit hole is going to take me away from my fiction writing. I hope I get to live 50 more years just to explore these topics like I want.
“eating….Welcome Back (,) Kotter”. Where’s my editor?!?
It was always kind of a joke, but I used to call myself a “nihilist with a warped sense of duty”. I couldn’t quite figure out why I didn’t just sit on the couch all day eating Pringles and Welcome Back Kotter. I didn’t believe in anything, and nothing I did “mattered”…so why do I get up, earn a living and try to survive? I didn’t have a good answer. So, on a visceral level, I think I understand what he’s saying. If you put it in the book club, I’ll read it!