“Mere Morality” by Dan Barker (Part 4): Reason, Law, and Rebellion…and why the New Atheists really are just secular ultra-fundamentalist cult

After his elaboration on his belief that morality and culture are a result of evolutionary forces, Dan Barker then addresses the issues of Reason, Law, and Rebellion. If you remember, Barker borrowed his image of what it takes to discern what is moral from the image of a man with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other shoulder. In Barker’s version, human reason is where the man’s head is, and instead of an angel and a devil on each shoulder, there is instinct and law. In my previous post, I addressed his claims that morality is essentially an instinct. In this post, I will address his comments regarding reason and law…and then a section in his book entitled, “Rebellion.”

Reason
As should be somewhat obvious by now, Barker has a tendency to make very certain statements that, upon a moment’s reflection, turn out to be problematic and, quite frankly, nonsensical. Consider the following: “Reason is clear thinking and logical judgment. Along with your animal instincts, reason helps determine whether or not your genes will pass on to future descendants, not to mention whether you will have a chance at a good life yourself” (36).

Okay, reason is clear thinking and logical judgment—check. But how does your reason determine whether or not your genes (or which ones) will pass on to future descendants? When a husband gets his wife pregnant, is he using his reason to determine which chromosomes he passes down? Is he using logical deduction to determine if his child will have blonde or black hair, green or blue eyes? Simply put, no—Barker is simply wrong. Your reason does not determine which genes you pass on to future descendants.

Another thing Barker mentions is the development of the neocortex (i.e. the “higher brain”) in human beings. Simply put, it is the neocortex that gives human beings, unlike other animals, the ability to reason. Barker then argues that it is our reason that makes it possible for human beings to determine what is moral. As for the question, “What is moral?” Barker basically says, “That’s simple!” He writes, “Mere Morality boils down to a simple process: compare the relative merits of the consequences of your available actions and try to pick the course that results in the least amount of harm. That’s all there is to it” (40).

This is what Barker calls the harm principle. And hence, he argues that human reason gives us the ability to determine what is and is not harmful—and whatever is not harmful = MORAL! Or, as he later elaborates, “My minimal responsibility (if I want to act morally) is to simply try to remove as many unnecessary obstructions as I can from our freedom and to seek happiness” (41).

Well, to be quite honest, that reasoning is quite arbitrary, to say the least. It says that the personal happiness is the ultimate good, and then says it is moral to get rid of any unnecessary obstructions to that pursuit of personal happiness. Well, what if I determine a million dollars will make me happy, and I see the bank vault as an unnecessary obstruction to my pursuit of getting a million dollars and being happy? Using Barker’s logic, robbing that bank would be “moral” (at least for me).

He would no doubt reply, “But that would inflict harm on the bank and the people who put their money in that bank—therefore robbing that bank would be immoral.” But then I could reply, “Why should I care about them? All that matters is what makes me happy and what I can do to remove any unnecessary obstructions to my happiness.” Now, of course this is a silly example, but it goes to the heart of why Barker’s “harm principle” is woefully inadequate for determining what is moral. And that is precisely the problem when one tries to root morality in a law or principle. Laws and principles are not universal, and they can easily be manipulated.

Law
While we’re talking about law, a few things need to be said about Barker’s comments regarding law—specifically, the difference between law in “revealed religions” and in humanistic society. To cut to the chase, the following extended quite is nothing more than politically-correct pandering and gobbly-gook:

“In the ‘revealed’ religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, humanity is judged by the law. In a humanistic society, the law is judged by humanity. Many holier-than-thou believers strongly feel they are minimizing harm when they fight things like abortion and gay rights.  Their church feeds them the dogma that certain things are abominations, not based on any real harm to humans, but on supposedly divinely revealed commandments that declare them to be offensive to the ‘holiness’ of the creator. Their ‘morality’ is otherworldly. Since their principles are not based on real harm, their actions often cause more damage than good. They replace reason with superstition and fear. Reason, shows us, for example, that there is nothing wrong with being gay, and if the bible says homosexuality is wrong, then the bible is wrong, not homosexuality” (44-45).

What does any of that actually mean? “The law is judged by humanity”? Abortion doesn’t do harm to human life? Yes, the issue is a complicated one, but how is the denial that we are dealing with human life any less muddle-headed, uncritical and (quite frankly) stupid than the insistence that a newly-fertilized egg should be considered a full-fledged citizen of the United States?

Barker says, “their principles are not based on real harm.” Really? “Do not murder” isn’t based on real harm? And while we’re at throwing out muddle-headed PC statements, where in the Bible does it say homosexuality is wrong? In the ancient world, they didn’t define themselves according to our modern idea of “sexual orientation.” The very word “homosexual” wasn’t even coined until the 19^th century. What those various biblical passages are addressing is same-sex sexual acts, often associated with pagan practices. They were not addressing what we in the modern world would call “sexual orientation.” Like abortion, the modern issue of homosexuality is a complicated and controversial one. So over-simplistic statements and condemnations based on a really ignorant reading of various passages in the Bible do more harm than good.

Rebellion
The next chapter in Mere Morality is entitled “Rebellion,” and from this point on throughout the rest of the book, Barker pretty much resorts to his standard “Christianity bad/Secular Humanism good” diatribe that most of his other books are fixated on. His comments really are nothing more than snide remarks about cherry-picked verses and caricatures of faith. Let’s see what he has to offer.

At one point, Barker told about a debate he had with a pastor during which he tried to show how immoral and stupid the Bible was. After saying, “Damn God!” Barker then said, “There, I just broke the Third Commandment. I took the name of the Lord Your God in vain. Are you going to have me arrested for blasphemy?” (56). Can you count how many problems are in that claim? (1) Barker doesn’t know what “taking the name of the Lord your God in vain” means; (2) Barker wrongly assumes that the Torah is meant to be some sort of universal theocratic law code; and (3) Barker doesn’t realize that the Torah is the founding covenant document of the nation of ancient Israel.

Later in the chapter, Barker said this: “There used to be a time in our nation when racism, sexism, and classism were perfectly nature and legal—slavery, denying the vote to women, privileged inequality, for example (which are biblically based)—but through struggle and experiment, we have abandoned those primitive harmful practices. Much of that struggle was against the church” (57).

What’s wrong with that quote? (1) The racially-based slavery of pre-Civil War America was a totally different institution than the ancient institution of slavery—therefore, to say that what happened in America was “biblically-based” is simply false; (2) Where it the Bible does it deny women the right to vote? For that matter, where in the ancient world was there any kind of modern western democracy where voting rights was even an issue, or even possible? (3) Did Barker actually claim that the CHURCH enforced slavery and prohibited women’s voting rights?

Ironically, right after he made that claim, he said, “The laws that arose from the struggle to increase fairness and reduce harm were humanistic, not religious” (57). So let’s just take civil rights as an example—are we to believe that the REVEREND Martin Luther King Jr’s fight for civil rights was not inspired by his religious convictions? “Oh,” I’m sure Barker would say, “I’m saying the laws that were the result of MLK’s civil rights movement were humanistic.” Okay—so then we should be clear: the motivation for civil rights rose from a distinct religious conviction, and the resulting laws that came about because of that struggle benefit society as a whole.

I’ll accept that—of course, that fact disproves Barker’s fundamental claims.

Parting Shots
At the end of his chapter on “Rebellion,” Barker engages in what can be described as nothing more than cheap propaganda and horrible caricatures:

“Law does not mean the same thing to biblical Christians that it means to the rest of us. Their law is bible-based, conservative, and stagnant, while humanistic law is progressive and free to improve. Theirs is autocratic, based solely on the command of a dictator, while ours is democratic, based on the consent of the governed. Their rules come from otherworldly values, while our principles are based on this world, where morality really matters. Theirs is a put-down of humanity (‘original sin’), while ours is a celebration of who we really are (‘Bill of Rights’).  Their view of human nature is pessimistic, while ours is optimistic and hopeful” (61).

[Theistic morality] is “based primarily on a might-makes-right mentality. With its threat of eternal torture, inept role models, and a cosmic dictator who is praise-hungry, angry, and violent, the bible offers an ethical system that reduces to the morality of a toddler who fears and flatters the father figure. In most religions, behavior is governed by rules, but in real life behavior should be governed by principles. In real life, behavior should not be governed by the bible” (61).

So much can be said to point out how over-simplistic and manipulative comments like these are, but I think most clear-thinking people can see that Barker hasn’t lost his Fundamentalist preacher’s ability to engage in broad-brushed caricatures and black-and-white, us vs. them bunker mentality: “They are all bad! We are all good!” Such is the mindset of cults and ultra-Fundamentalists. And I am convinced that this breed of “new atheists” of which Barker is a part, is really just a secular form of an ultra-Fundamentalist cult.

Indeed, these types of quotes by the New Atheists (be it Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Coyne, or Barker) simply reinforce my conviction that they, at a fundamental level, really do share the same mindset and worldview as ultra-Fundamentalists and YECists like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, among others. Yes, they’re conclusions are polar opposite of YECists, but the very way they understand the Bible and view reality is eerily similar. Their approach is ultimately childish, uncritical, and immature.