The eighth letter is found online here.

‘My fear is that once society as a whole accepts your basic presuppositions (that there are no absolutes in morality, that morality changes and that human nature is genetically determined) then it is a slippery slope to the kind of atheistic societies that the world has already seen (such as Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China)’ p96 The Dawkins Letters.

With this quote Robertson takes us to the heart of his eighth letter. This is no detached philosophical reflection. This is reality. At least it could be. And that’s the point. Atheism has nothing to say to stop it. In attacking the myth of godless morality Robertson makes two telling points.

1. The atheistic account of morality is woefully incoherent

The atheistic case for Darwinian morality rests on three pillars.

a. Being moral or being good is defined as being altruistic. We’re genetically pre-programmed to be altruistic to people who are genetically most like us.

b. We’re also altruistic because that way we end up in a virtuous circle where the recipients of our altruism end up reciprocating our altruism.

c. We gain superiority over our peers when we gain a reputation for altruism. Robertson suggests that there are four problems with this moral framework.

1. it’s selfish

Fundamentally this version of morality is all about me. The Bible locates the heart of the human problem in the self centeredness of the human heart. But it nowhere argues that this should provide the basis of our moral reasoning. On the contrary, the Bible’s moral teaching aims to deliver us from the selfishness of human appetites and decision making. But the basis of atheistic morality is selfishness.

2. it’s deterministic

Atheism argues that we’re only good because we’ve been genetically pre-programmed that way. There’s no room for decision, volition and responsibility. It’s not really me making a moral decision. It’s my genetic pre-disposition. And I can’t be blamed for that. Take it up with my genes. So if this were the case then there are no grounds for human accountability. Of course, we don’t want to be naïve and deny that our genes have some influence on our decision making. But we do make decisions for which we are culpable. The trouble with the atheistic model of morality is that it doesn’t accord humanity with the responsibility that we observe or require for ruling some behaviour illegitimate.

3. it’s relativistic

Atheistic morality is secular. The moral standards of atheism are not absolute. Therefore everything is ‘up for grabs’. That’s pretty frightening. As Robertson notes, ‘if there is no ultimate standard then we are left with anything goes, might is right, or the whims of a changing and confused society’. That’s not an entirely inaccurate description of where UK Government legislation is currently heading. The chickens are coming home to roost.

4. it’s illogical

Darwinian philosophy cannot logically and consistently argue for morality because there’s no such thing as good or bad. Read these words from Dawkins’ the Blind Watchmaker, ‘In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference’. Read that again. It’s chilling. But it’s also illogical. Neo-Darwinism has no rational basis for being good. Atheistic philosophers realise this and so they’re running around like ‘blue-arsed flies’ trying to plug the gap and come up with a rationale for godless morality. But it’s an exercise in futility.

In contrast to the incoherence of the atheistic morality there’s Christianity.

2. The Christian account of morality is compellingly coherent

Presumably Dawkins knows that the incoherence of the Neo-Darwinian account of morality is atheism’s Achilles heel. And he tries to conceal that with a vehement attack on the Christian account of morality. Tactically it’s astute. In all honesty it’s deceptive. His biggest issue with Christian morality is the Bible, which he deals with in chapter 7 of TGD. But it’s not his only issue. He cites the example of immoral acts by Christians which discredit the claim of morality. There are two easy counters to this argument. First, Jesus would not have us be immoral. Secondly, the immoral acts of some who profess faith shouldn’t tarnish everyone who does. But Dawkins also has an issue with Christianity’s big stick approach to keeping us on the straight and narrow. He doesn’t put it in those terms of course. He’s an academic and so he cites Einstein who said, ‘If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed’. I prefer my version. Robertson points out that, ‘The Bible recognises that human beings are complex and that we need a system of checks and balances to help us’. And so he asks Dawkins a series of rhetorical questions. ‘Would you like the police to be removed from Oxford? Do you think that students at your university should be threatened with punishment if they cheat? Or should they be given higher degrees if they do better than their peers? Surely if your students are only studying and not cheating because they fear punishment or have hope for some reward they are a sorry lot?’ If Dawkins was opposed to the threat of punishment as a means of motivating behaviour then he’d answer in the negative. But of course he won’t. Once again he’s hoisted on his own petard. Having defended Christian morality against false charges Robertson then goes on the attack and shows its strength.

1. Christian morality explains evil

The Bible tells us what we already know to be true of ourselves; we’re messed up. The real issue in the morality debate is why people are evil. Christianity has an answer; the answer. But Dawkins’ version of morality is naively optimistic. He assumes that we’ll all end up like middle class Oxford dons. But he can’t explain why we shouldn’t end up like middle class German Nazis. The Bible does, and it calls it sin.

2. Christian morality explains the universe

Quoting CS Lewis’ essay ‘Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe’ Robertson argues that atheism cannot account for the universal moral impulse and a universal sense of moral guilt. Lewis asks where we get this awareness of wrong and right from if it’s not from the divine creation of the universe.

3. Christian morality explains me

The GK Chesterton quote is wonderfully evocative. I think I heard it every year at Christian summer camp. In a letter to the Times newspaper he wrote, ‘Dear Editor: What’s wrong with the world? I am. Faithfully yours, GK Chesterton’. It makes the point that the Bible explains that the evil that caused the holocaust is present in each one of us. Robertson’s point is that atheism has no grounds for morality. Christianity does. But is there’s no such thing as absolute right and wrong then nothing is ruled out and everything, everything is permissible. That this is the case is supported by some of the central figures of atheistic ethics and philosophy.

Peter Singer, the Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, argues that mentally impaired babies have no greater rights than certain animals.

Bill Hamilton, a Professor of evolutionary biology at Oxford, argued for a radical programme of infanticide, eugenics and euthanasia in order to save the world.

Konrad Lorenz, the Austrian zoologist and animal psychologist who founded ethology or the study of animal behaviour, was an enthusiastic Nazi.

J.B.S Haldane, geneticist and evolutionary biologist who was one of the founders of population genetics, was a committed Stalinist.

R.A. Fisher, the evolutionary biologist and geneticist who created the foundations for modern statistical science, argued that civilization was threatened because upper class women weren’t procreating at a sufficient rate.

These are not peripheral figures or straw men constructed in order to caricature a position with which Christianity takes issue. These guys are front and centre. They were advocates of extreme social views. Dawkins ignores them.

Conclusion

But before we move on from this we must be clear on one thing. Christians are not moralists. We believe in morality because the Bible does. But the Bible doesn’t give us a set of laws to observe. It gives us a saviour to trust. We know that our moral transformation comes not through our behaviour but through our belief in Jesus Christ. He dealt with our immorality on the cross and he deals with our morality with His Spirit.

The Myth of the Inherent Evil of Religion

You can find this letter online here.

Dawkins’ chapter five, ‘The Roots of Religion’ is his attempt to explain why there’s a pervading religious presence in the world if there’s no God in the universe. Dawkins’ chapter eight ‘What’s Wrong with Religion?’ provides his rationale for attacking theism in all its forms. Robertson deals with them together in this letter. He tees us up nicely for what to expect in Dawkins’ treatment of this matter when he writes, ‘I find your analysis in these two chapters hard to respond to because they depend on the failed thesis that God has been proven not to exist and, because your treatment of religion is imbalanced, distorted and reflective, not so much of objective analysis but rather of your own subjective anti-God feelings’ p77 The Dawkins Letters.

Robertson has two essential issues with Dawkins.

1. Dawkins has a simplistic view of the prevalence of religion

C.S. Lewis once wrote, ‘Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in the world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world’ quotes on p87 The Dawkins Letters. That’s one answer for the prevalence of religion. There are alternatives. Dawkins’ answer is that religion is an unexpected spin off from natural selection. His argument is that the memetic proliferation of dependent trust, fostered in children towards parents, strengthens the case for evolutionary survival. It’s advantageous in evolutionary terms to be trusting. The problem, as Dawkins sees it, is that some just don’t know when or who to trust. It makes them susceptible to gullibility. Religious faith is a parasitical virus that infects the gullible. It is as Alistair McGrath puts it in his book Dawkins’ God, people do not believe in God because they have given long and careful thought to the matter; they do so because they have been infected by a powerful meme’. But there are three significant problems with this meme hypothesis!

a. There’s absolutely no evidence for such a theory. That means that this theory is an unsubstantiated piece of speculation! Robertson says it’s ‘just making things up as you go along in order to fit everything into your all encompassing evolutionary theory’. He calls it ‘science of the gaps’. Do you see what he’s done there?!

b. If this hypothesis was correct then neo-Darwinian ideas would be simply be a meme.

c. Memes can be neutralized and eradicated by some mental exercises. In fact, to be consistent, since they’re viruses that infect the mind they ought to be. Robertson quotes Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the University of Cambridge who in his book Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe says, ‘Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple mental exercises. In any wider context, they are hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic’. Ouch! I think that pretty much discredits the idea of memes.

2. Dawkins has a fundamentalist approach to the validity of religion

Robertson then deals with Dawkins’ rant against religion in chapter eight. He calls him a fundamentalist. Robertson’s beef is summarised in these words, ‘Whilst it would only be a fool who denies that some aspects of religion and some religious people have caused a great deal of harm in the world, it is equally foolish to make the kind of irresponsible sweeping statements that you do here – in order to foster the myth that religion is harmful. This is an atheist half-truth which is erroneously but widely accepted’ p80 The Dawkins Letters. But Dawkins doesn’t like being called a fundamentalist. He’s a self professed despiser of religious fundamentalism and so he recoils at the suggestion that he’s an anti-theistic fundamentalist. But Robertson suggests that Dawkins attracts this unwelcome description for the following three reasons

a. The logic goes something like this. Dawkins is passionate about what he believes. Fundamentalists are passionate about what they believe. Therefore Dawkins is a fundamentalist. Passion is bad. Apparently. Well, in the wider social context it’s viewed with suspicion. Dawkins falls foul of this and therefore attracts an unwelcome label. Welcome to the club Richard! But there is a downside to his passionate hatred of religion. He must share some concern for the way his vitriolic verbal attacks have consequences as his words are implemented by his devotees in ways that he would not approve.

b. Dawkins doesn’t debate and this simply reinforces the view that his view is right and that there’s nothing really to discuss. I’m not sure that this is still the case. He’s debated Alistair McGrath and John Lennox in recent months. But Robertson is right to say that Dawkins verbally hammers anyone who disagrees with him and lauds those who don’t.

c. Dawkins resorts to caricature, mockery and misrepresentation of those who disagree with him. Chapter eight is littered with this sort of treatment. Dawkins cites the extreme example of Pastor Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church of ‘God hates fags’ infamy. We’re supposed to believe that this is typical and representative of American Christianity. But as Robertson points out anyone could produce a list of fringe mentally imbalanced people on any subject but that doesn’t invalidate the subject. It’s the tactic of the fundamentalist to caricature his opponents, mock them and dismiss them. Robertson writes, ‘You have a good reason to equating Christianity with the unbalanced fringe. It suits your purpose to agree with them as to what Christianity is. That’s why you interview extremist. You set up straw men and then it makes you look so much more reasonable. But that is the tactic of the fundamentalist who is out to prove that he alone has the truth, rather than the scholar or the seeker after truth’ p84 The Dawkins Letters.

Dawkins justifies his heavy handed approach to religion and the lack of refinement in choosing his targets because he thinks that ‘mild and moderate’ religion helps to provide a climate in which extremism can flourish. But of course, the same could be said of ‘mild and moderate’ atheism.

Conclusion

Robertson’s task has been to defend Christianity from the unfair attacks of an anti-theistic fundamentalist. In my view, he’s done a pretty good job. Dawkins has not accounted for the prevalence of faith and he has failed to show that religion inevitably produces extremism.