In that example, Dawkins doesn't need to postulate some other planet to make his point. Lying, murdering, and stealing are, in many instances, considered moral right here on Planet Earth. Generally, if there is a direct benefit that does more good than harm (the Utilitarian argument, granted, and therefore weak, but bear with me), it can be justified as 'moral.'
An intelligence officer may consider lying as morally acceptable as an obligation to his job. A soldier may consider murder a morally acceptable pursuit of an intangible (i.e. religion, nationalism, the obtainment of resources). A CEO can justify cheating as an amoral benefit (especially if the cheating is extremely technical) if it brings in a bigger profit, thereby providing a better standard of living for his family, his employees, and his shareholders (creating a better standard of life can be presented as a moral positive, no?).
There's a reason no one is 'perfect'. That is because everyone has a varying degree of tolerance for accepting what is morally acceptable and what isn't. Obviously, plenty of people willingly act in an immoral fashion, but that doesn't impact the universal reality of self-justification. No person on this planet is acting in a purely positive moral framework. That is because one does not exist. Dawkin's example of what we consider 'right' and 'wrong' are only explicable in cultural (and, consequently, personal) considerations. Religion is a cultural framework. So is science (yes, 2+2 always equals 4, unless you live in a totalitarian society that declares it equals 5, and no this is not an unfair argument because stem cell science is considered to be of acceptable moral value by some cultural valuations and unacceptable by others*).
Doesn't this prove his point?
I say no. I'm going with the anthropic principle here (just like Dawkins): because we developed the cultural norms we have, it is only logical that our deities demand similarly considered norms (many religious proscriptions against particular foods have precedent in health issues, it wouldn't make much sense for a deity to demand that we sacrifice every child born in his name, etc.)
Just as our cultures change and evolve, so does our understanding and engagement with religion. From polytheism to monotheism in the West, and naturalist Taoism to politically orientated Confucianism in the East, religions change and evolve. Even saying that, I'm not implying that present day polytheistic traditions (such as Hinduism) are in some way less relevant to day to day living. This goes back to cultural norms: religions are cultural constructions used to describe the universe in a non-rational capacity.
Have I wandered into the muck of Relativist incoherence? Maybe, but allow me this point. I believe there is one God, who is active in human history, which exists as a presence beyond the explication of science. A Taoist would say they believe in a universal force, active in every event, beyond the explication of science. A Hindu would say they believe in a universe beyond our perception, where Gods influence human events, beyond the explication of human history. These are all the results of cultural conditions and considerations. Is one very particular cultural understanding right, and everything else bullshit? Probably not, that is an absolutist argument. Religions should be judged by their ability to promote positive moral action in their particular culture, for that particular people (it is important to not underestimate the differences in human cultures).
Does this line of reasoning seem plausible? It certainly seems (to me) to be a rational explanation for the occurrence and spread of religion throughout all humanity. They exist as super-social moral motivators (do things that are good, the God(s) will smile on you, fuck around and you will get burned). If it can be explained rationally, then why believe in it? That seems to be the argument I'm reading from a lot of these authors. That seems to be what Dawkins is saying by presenting that 'non-moral' beliefs would self-destruct.
This is stupid: if science can be explained, then why believe in it? Surely our total understanding of science is limited at this point, plenty of what we know will one day be overturned, a good percentage of what is fact today will turn out to be folklore in the future . . . but if offers explanation. Therefore we believe it to offer (at least some) representation of truth, however incomplete.
The difference is that you can disprove science, while you cannot disprove religion. Put that way, it seems that science is a weaker position to take, because you go into it knowing it is incomplete. But the rational man argues that it is that incompleteness, that flexibility to conform to the facts on the ground, that gives science its greatness.
The rational man could also argue that it is religion's structure, its moral imperatives that exist beyond personal immediate gratification, that give it its endurance. It cultivates social cohesion and survival. That it does so in an ostensibly mythological framework doesn't take away it's effect. Beyond accepting the evolutionarily agreeable position that religions survive because they somehow keep their people alive (otherwise the Darwinist would have to argue that religions would have long become extinct, as their social cost would have outweighed their benefit and their practitioners would be out-competed**), it is a simple matter of faith. You either go for it or not, to varying degrees, again as a result of your particular cultural and personal imperatives and preferences.
I'm not making the argument for belief. Since science can be disproven, it exists as a social understanding, subject to argument and debate. Belief in something that exists beyond the realm of explanation is not subject to argument and debate, therefore it is an individual decision (conversion at the point of the sword doesn't immediately denote actual belief). What is subject to debate is the moral action of people practicing facets of their personalized belief system: is suicide bombing (in the name of religion) justifiable? Is carpet bombing (in the name of nationalism) justifiable? Is organ harvesting justifiable (in the name of science)?
That's what we need to argue about, not whether or not someone's particular faith is scientifically valid. The underlying premise (science can explain everything, there is no need for religion) is flawed.
*the response here, that the results are inarguable, does not convince me. For the record, I support continued stem cell research because it will probably produce a positive result, but it is myopic to suggest that just because we agree on something makes it correct. There were plenty of reasonable supporters of Eugenics who thought it would lead to a positive result. Honestly, by some valuation, that argument could be considered correct (who is to say here? beyond the ugliness of suggesting it, a super tuned master race of blond haired blue eyed Aryans, capable of running further, less at risk of suicide, and less susceptible to disease would be viewed as a positive by said Aryans, if such a thing had come about.) My point is, science is valued by cultural norms. The numbers don't mean anything if they don't receive the support of the community.
**here one can argue that religion could very well play out in a totally destructive fashion (Jihadists releasing an unstoppable plague, say, or Dominionists in the Pentagon launching nuclear missiles against Russia in order to provoke Armageddon). This is strictly hypothetical - politics and economics could play out in similarly total destructive fashion, but you don't hear very many people saying we need to abandon politics. Maybe we need to abandon communism, or the idea of unsustainable economic growth . . . maybe we should also abandon the idea of killing in the name of God (or the Gods, or whatever). You can't select the most damaging propositions of a cultural system and evaluate the entire system as worthless. This would be akin to pointing out that the Easter Island Polynesians' economic policies resulted in their total destruction, therefore the whole of their economic system (that allowed them to survive on an extremely isolated island for hundreds of years) was incorrect, and further their remaining monuments are worthless, as they were the direct. product of a flawed system. I bring this up because I think humanity has a sell through date, that technological advance will eventually become so far removed from our ability to control it that our understanding of civilization will vanish (think Easter Islanders' developing increasingly efficient lumber harvesting techniques, resulting in their total obliteration) and the 'end of the world' (however you want to define that, whether it be the end of a globalized economic framework, the end of humanity, or the end of life on this planet) will happen. That shouldn't discount all the cool things we have done, that shouldn't render meaningless every life lived, and it shouldn't invalidate a person's faith or a culture's science, even if it can't save them from vanishing. Fuck, it's all gonna vanish eventually. Science seeks permanence where there is little to none - without the application of science, it is simply a description of something that exists indepently of it. But a rational man will tell you that even if humanity disappears, 2+2 would still equal 4, whatever that means. A person faith will tell you that even if humanity (or if their particular person) disappears, what they did, morally, will still have some meaning, whatever that is.
