In a world without religion or beliefs that assist us in judging our actions, things would develop in completely different ways; things quite simply would not even resemble their current state if we changed people’s beliefs from an earlier point. Also, actions like justice, agency, and even existence wouldn’t exist, so evaluating our ideas of religion, and our positions in morality become increasingly valuable and important. Assuming that God did create us, we are able to fill in many of the blanks that science has yet to understand, and speculative action towards areas that science may never explain are “revealed.” However, taking the non-theological understanding of the world, how would things play out? What would be the likely outcome of the evolution of man and the world? In this essay, some of the analysis given by Professor de Waal shows us a new perspective of religion and morality that is captivating, and interesting. A dip into the discourse and literary strategies used to establish logos, ethos, and pathos, will undoubtedly give a new synthesis of ideologies from a new framework and perspective that hopefully develops an interesting spin on the topic of religion and morality.
One of the first ideas that is introduced by the author in this text, is the depiction of the area that he grew up in, an author that lived there long before, and one of his paintings describing an idealistic existence inside of nature (how could art describe something otherwise?) This influence set into motion some of his initial interests regarding the topic of morality in nature, and appears as one of his first appeals in the establishment of ethos. Though he states that he isn’t an expert in the art of Bosch, he does call on this artistic piece with a hope that others might be able to understand or compare similar experiences to his own, and gain a model of perspective for a future application of his pathos or logos.
Following his description of artistic influence in the development of his thought, he introduces a biological perspective to morality, which could definitely be considered his strongest appeal to the general audience, is the main point of the article, and is the author’s strongest use of logos. The discussion of a biological perspective in the understanding of morality gives a substantive way to measure whether something is or isn’t moral and gives us a strong appeal to logos. Studies of the prefrontal cortex and various primates with similarly structured brains have shown that actions generally considered as altruistic and human are programmed in animals also. However he doesn’t assume the probability difference of animals and humans exhibiting these characteristics, he makes a generalization that they will act similarly much of the time, but basic experience would indicate otherwise. Our ability to obtain a higher level of consciousness means greater reasoning capabilities and conclusions of action that are usually dramatically different than animals. This is a fundamental perspective that is not acknowledged by de Waal, but it’s likely that his analysis on this topic would follow the rest of the paper, and remain atheistic and naturalistic. This issue is partially addressed later in the paper, but nevertheless is an assumption that he holds on to, to a large degree.
A strong evocation of pathos occurs here also. The author proves he knows his audience by tossing in comments about religion, that are snippets directly contradicting the logical approach of biology, and tuning in to the more agnostic/atheist audience accustomed to reading articles of this sort. Some examples of this are proved when he mentions the comment by Reverend Al Sharpton, the one line comment about what would happen to Christianity in the abyss of evolution and especially the inevitable demise of Christian beliefs with the acceptance of ultimate factual ethos belonging to science. His acknowledgement of these beliefs immediately grips the audience, no matter what side they are on, to read on and see what choice he will ultimately elucidate as prevailing. All the while the author is prancing on a topic—morality-- that is generally considered to be of central value in a person’s perception, thereby evoking strong emotion through his speculation regarding religion and the use of logic through biology.
One of the most powerful phrases from this opinion paper comes when the author partially rebuts Reverend Sharpton’s comment that without God there is no morality. De Waal says “Perhaps it is just me, but I am wary of anyone whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior.” This is a comment that I’m sure all of us agree with; we certainly hope that there is something inherent in nature that disallows us to fall prey to our “worse” side and exhibit harmful behaviors. I strongly dislike approaching things from a strongly theological perspective, but from an Latter-Day Saint perspective this inherently smacks of the “Light of Christ” arguments we believe about human nature. This shows another—completely unintended-- appeal to the logos of what is probably the minority in the audience, the Latter-Day Saint grouping and definitely helps to establish some of his credibility and ethos among these select few readers.
In the next section de Waal looks into some empirical examples in studies that he has done or observed, to strengthen his view, as well as some short but fairly succinct analysis of the notion of pleasure in influencing altruistic action. The citation of behavior exhibited by the animals in his empirical examples is really strong, and gives a strong appeal to his ethos, but also the logos of the text. The fact that the author has conducted experiments to prove his point, and the experiments have produced the expected results, shows he has the capacity to look for external variables that could influence a view like the one that he holds, and proves that his point is tenable from a logical perspective with observations that can be proved many times over, with different animals, and completely different environments and social groups.
The view that morality evolved from social instincts in the evolutionary progression of nature is used to make his point appeal to both the religious man, and the scientist. The author tries to tell the religious man that his actions have not been contradictory to the nature of things, and in this action perhaps reduces the pain of any “toes that have been stepped on” by his biologically determined bulldozer. At the same time, he tries to prove that his point is legitimate from a logical perspective by showing examples of animals acting extremely altruistic.
He continues in the text to argue that the evolution of nature, specifically the nature of primates, is to try to create a greater amount of fairness and equality, specifically this perspective is an example of logos. He cites examples of primates helping each other, and even finding joy in helping their fellow animals. It is at this point that he reflects a tone of passion, he states “I am a firm believer in the Humean position that reason is the slave of the passions.” He uses this as an assumption in his assertion that altruism is biological, and although it is an interesting point, he leaves himself susceptible to a reduction of logos due to the difficult time he would have in proving this point completely, like he indicates he believes. Also, the firmness of his position in this belief and the emotion that he has toward this topic is partly revealed at this point, and reflects an example of pathos.
The final portion of this opinion page was likely to leave the assumed main audience – the scientific atheist – slightly bewildered by an unpredictable ending. De Waal concludes the essay with the final assertion that science has no authority in the determination of morality and the determination of action. He also concedes a major point, and says that inevitably people will fall prey to the western culture, and are steeped in the Christian morality that accompanies it. This argument is very interesting in comparison to the rest of the paper, because he concedes that the biological arguments that are cited to prove why altruistic morality is good actually don’t matter. The scientific crowd reading this is really left with no option but to embrace the Christian morality, even though they might not believe that it’s true. The author continues along this train of thought and even says that even if we could get rid of organized religion and replace it with science, religion would inevitable make a comeback in issues of a speculative nature. This tone lacks the optimism of most mainstream atheists and agnostics.
In conclusion, the option of participating in social politics that reflect the Christian altruism and beliefs is, according to de Waal, inevitable despite the commonly held belief in the scientific community that God doesn’t live. The author seems to establish really strong ethos among the scientific readers, using strong logic as an connection to pathos, but the “Atheist Dilemma” section of the text seems to dash a viable alternative to Christian morality, and leaves the reader with a question. If the God doesn’t live, what underlying force or physiological process motivates actions that aren’t calculably selfish?
No comments:
Post a Comment