In my previous post, I looked at Dan Barker’s comments in chapter 12 of his book, godless, in which he discusses his view regarding the issue of what the basis of morality is. My critique focused on his Fundamentalist caricature of the Bible as some sort of universal, external moral code dictated from on high, as well as his assertion that morality and ethics are based in nature and the animal kingdom. In this post, I want to tackle the rest of chapter 12, particularly Barker’s comments regarding (A) Morality, (B) Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution, and (C) the Image of God.
More Morality
After making his assertion that the basis of morality is to be found in nature, Barker makes a number of other comments in this chapter that I question. Let’s take a look:
“Killing a person for no reason other than pleasure is both unethical and immoral” (213).
Why? What in the animal kingdom indicates that killing a member of your own species is unethical and immoral? This is simply another case of where Barker’s moral claim contradicts his assertion that our basis for morality is found in nature. Now obviously, killing a person for no reason is immoral. But such a judgment cannot be derived from anything in nature or the animal kingdom. We don’t accuse lions of “murdering” zebras. That’s just what lions do. But we do accuse people of murdering other people, with the assumption that people should not do what lions do. There is something else at play when it comes to humans. Barker knows there’s something else at play. He has written books about that something else at play. And yet he insists that there’s nothing else at play: humans are just animals and we should take our moral cues from nature.
“There is no big mystery to morality. Morality is simply acting with the intention to minimize harm. Since harm is natural, its avoidance is a material exercise. …If we try to minimize harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral. …The way to be moral is to first learn what causes harm and how to avoid it. This means investigating nature—especially human nature: who we are, what we need, where we live, how we function and why we behave the way we do” (214).
Do you see the bait and switch Barker is doing? He’s saying that the basis of morality is in human nature, and human nature is no different than animal nature. But then he turns around and treats human nature in an utterly unique way than the rest of the animal kingdom.
Barker then gives his own take on the golden rule with his “natural” reason why we should love our neighbor: “Why should I treat my neighbor nicely? Because we are all connected. We are part of the same species, genetically linked. Since I value myself and my species, and the other species to which we are related, I recognize that when someone is hurting, my natural family is suffering. By nature, those of us who are mentally healthy recoil from pain and wish to see it ended” (214).
Again, why should you value your own species and other species? Animals kill each other all the time. What “in nature” tells us that valuing the lives of other species is moral? What Barker’s comments ultimately boil down to is this: “We should be moral because we’re animals who should be mora,” which is to really say nothing at all.
Barker also shows how his moral compass is off by the fact he attempts to argue that Mother Teresa was immoral. He quotes her as saying, “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is much helped by the suffering of the poor people,” and then makes the snarky comment, “So much for theistic compassion” (215).
Let’s just step back and think about that for a moment. Mother Teresa spent 50 years among the poor and dying in Calcutta. She founded The Missionaries of Charity, with 4,500 nuns in over 120 countries, ministering to the poor and caring for people with HIV/AIDs, leprosy, and tuberculosis, just for starters. The nuns took vows to give “whole-hearted free service to the poorest of the poor.” Barker is accusing this woman of having no compassion while he goes around the country suing local governments if they happen to have a Ten Commandments display anywhere on public property.
Thomas Jefferson
Barker then takes some time talking about Thomas Jefferson and the founding of the United States of America. In sort, he simply gets quite a lot wrong. First off, having the true Fundamentalist mindset that he has, he gets the founding of our country and the writing of the Constitution wrong when he writes, “Then we produced a godless Constitution, the first to separate church and state” (216).
I say this reveals a Fundamentalist mindset in the way it views history in such black-and-white terms. Many Christian Fundamentalists incorrectly claim that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation, completely overlooking the fact that, while no doubt many Founding Fathers were influenced by Christianity, many simply were not Christians and they weren’t trying to make a Christian nation. In a similar way, Barker, as a Fundamentalist atheist, tries to claim that the Founding Fathers were 100% secularists who were adamantly opposed to Christianity, and that the whole “separation of Church and State” was their attempt to keep the Church from influencing the State. That is simply false. First of all, “separation of Church and State” is not found in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution is the First Amendment that expressly prohibits the State from establishing an official religion.
It doesn’t say there can’t be religious symbols on government property. It doesn’t say public schools can’t have a prayer before commencements or football games. It expressly says that the State cannot impose a State religion. That’s it, and that is far different than how Barker attempts to portray what First Amendment is about. Actually, we should be clear: he really doesn’t say that about the First Amendment; he says that about what Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. And here is what Jefferson wrote in that letter:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
It is quite clear in Jefferson’s letter that Barker’s interpretation of “separation between Church and State” conflicts with Jefferson’s stated intent. But that isn’t the only thing Barker gets wrong about Jefferson. In the midst of his talking about how Jefferson was a deist, Barker said the following:
“The god of Deism was more like ‘nature’ than ‘Jehovah.’ When Jefferson claimed that all people are ‘endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,’ he could not have meant ‘endowed’ in the sense of a sovereign granting a privilege that might be denied. …Jefferson meant, figuratively, that since we are ‘endowed by nature’ with common human needs, we are justified in expecting society to honor our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (218). And then, “He [Jefferson] conceived of God as a material being, or as nature itself, which is consistent with Deism” (219).
Not to sound picky, but that simply is not an apt description of the god of Deism. Deism states that there is a God who made the world, much like a clock-maker makes a grandfather clock. He then wound it up, got it started, and then left it alone to run completely on its own, according to the mechanics of nature (i.e. natural laws). In Deism, God has absolutely nothing to do with the material world at all. Therefore, for Barker to make the claim that the god of Deism is synonymous with nature itself is just mind-boggling. What he is claiming is literally the exact opposite of what Deism is.
The Image of God
The final thing I want to touch upon is Barker’s inability to understand what “the image of God” means in the Bible, particularly Genesis 1:27-28. He says so much when he writes, “Christians think we should treat others nicely because we were all created in the ‘image of God.’ This gives us value, they suppose. But they don’t explain why. Why does the image of a god provide greater value than some other image? Why does it give any value at all? What does ‘image of God’ mean?” (218).
Well let me enlighten Barker. In the ancient Near East (ANE), “images” were essentially idols. Simply put, “image” is idol language. In the ANE, people fashioned images of their gods, often in the form of various animals, then then worshipped those images that represented the gods they worshipped. It was believed that wherever the image/idol was, the god was there. Throughout the Bible, though, there is a clear condemnation of idolatry. The reason is simple: the constant biblical theme that you become like what you worship. If you worship an idol made in the image of beasts, you not only become spiritually blind and deaf (i.e. those idols cannot really see or hear), but you lose your humanity and become more beast-like, losing your reason and succumbing to your animal instincts and passions. Simply put, idol worship dehumanizes you.
In contrast, in the very first chapter of the Bible, the first thing we are told about human beings is that we are made in the image of God—we are, essentially, “idols” of the true God; we are God’s representatives within His creation. The reason we are not to worship images made by our hands is because we are the living images of God. Furthermore, we become truly human as we worship and remain in relationship with the Creator God. And therefore, since we are in the image of God, we have inherent dignity and worth.
Once you realize that, you then realize how the rest of Barker’s comments about the “image of God” are just nonsensical and, quite frankly, ignorant: He claims that nowhere in Scripture does it acknowledge that human beings should be treated with fairness and respect—yes it does: it is wrapped up in the declaration that we are made in God’s image. (Side note, Barker also complains that there is no democracy in the Bible—okay, welcome to reality: democracy wasn’t invented yet. Shall we condemn the Bible for not supporting women’s right to vote, too?)
Or consider this quote: “God is an idea, not a natural creature. Why should his ‘image’ be more valuable than our own ‘nature?’ What right does immaterial existence—a ghost in the sky—have to tell us natural creatures what is valuable?” (220). And: “If we were created in his unknowable image, then we have no idea who we are. But being fashioned in the ‘image of nature,’ we do know who we are and we can find out more. Right in our backyard, here on earth, we can investigate, study and continue to improve conditions on this planet. It wasn’t faith that eradicated smallpox. Contemplating the ‘image of god’ will not cure cancer or AIDS.” (220).
Apparently, Barker thinks “image of God” means and “immaterial existence” and a “ghost in the sky”? And he’s contrasting that with scientific investigation of the natural world? Incidentally, it is the rock singer Bono of U2 who has led the worldwide push to rid the world of AIDS. And do you know why he does it? Because he is a Christian who understands that since every human being is made in God’s image, that they have inherent dignity and worth, and that we have an obligation to care for the poor, the sick, and the needy.
So once again, Barker is simply wrong. It is the Christian conviction that people are made in God’s image that has led that way in so many areas of charity work and missionary work around the world. And so, when Barker ends the chapter with the following sentiment, “Science has given us much. What has theology ever provided? Theology has given us hell.” (220)—one can only shake one’s head in disbelief at the blinding ignorance of such a statement.
And thus, we conclude chapter 12 in godless. No, human morality is not based in nature and the animal kingdom. Strike one. No, “separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution and it isn’t advocating getting rid of all religious displays in the public sphere, nor is the god of Deism nature itself. Strike Two. And no, “image of God” is not a reference to ghosts. Strike three. You’re out.
Apparently, like many other people, Dan Barker was deeply wounded by a caricature of Christ and a systematic theology that misrepresents God. His aversion to his misunderstanding of God has driven him to reject anything that is called “God” or “god.” Somehow, we need to become more vivid, more consistent images of God so that others can see the beauty of his glory.
Great! Echoes of NT Wright in this one (the section on being made in God’s image and becoming what you worship).
Mr. Barker says acting morally is simply doing no harm (kinda like the Wiccan mantra which says “An ye harm none, do as ye will.”) But isn’t what constitutes “harm” subjective? For example the Nazis did not view the Holocaust as “causing harm,” indeed, quite the opposite.Oh., it might’ve been harmful for European Judaism, but it was good for Nazi Germany, which was all that mattered to Hitler.
And for 300 years white Americans regarded slavery as beneficial for not only white Americans, but for the enslaved African race.
So who decides what action(s) is/are “harmful” and which aren’t? If morality is based in nature, that means it’s subjective, thus what might harm one group of people might benefit another. Thus Barker’s definition of morality as not doing anything harmful simply won’t work..
And Barker clearly is taking Mother Theresa’s statement totally out of context. The Catholic Church teaches people to do what they can to alter a bad or unpleasant situation in life, but if that isn’t possible to offer it up to God and attempt to bear it.
And Jefferson, according to the Monticello website, strictly speaking, wasn’t a Deist but more of a Unitarian (https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs).
As for science, Barker needs to study his history because theology gave us science. For 1200 years the medieval Catholic Church was the primary sponsor of science, also founding the first universities and hospitals. Science and mathematics were compulsory in Medieval universities, so that, by 1200, almost half of the highest offices in the Church were held by degreed masters.
How many atheist groups have founded/endowed either universities or hospitals?
If what you’ve shared in these blogs is the best defense Mr. Barker can offer for atheism, the theistic position is in no danger whatsoever. Of course the modern atheists tend to appeal to emotion, rather than rational, factual arguments, so you’ll have to appeal to the audience’s critical thinking skills.
Pax.
Lee.
Lee,
Well, if you remember from one of my earlier posts, Barker DOES point out that atheists have built hospitals–the USSR! Although I don’t think he realizes that they actually murdered countless people in them.
Yes, the more one reads the stuff coming from the New Atheist Movement, the more one realizes how thin and irrational it really is. Maybe I can get Barker to read my upcoming book about Western civilization!
Also, I personally think there’s something rather funny about reducing morality to harm. We like to think that we do this in the West, but there’s a lot of other stuff at play.
For example, are incest and cannibalism acceptable if all participants are consenting adults? When I ask people about this to tease out their moral thinking, they reliably answer “no”. So why do we consider incest and cannibalism wrong? Because they’re disgusting, more or less.
And also, why is it wrong to eat dogs or guinea pigs? Because we see them as being like us in some sense (in the case of guinea pigs, because pet owners are extremely prone to anthropomorphism), and so it feels like an act of disloyalty to eat them. Speaking of which, I suspect most people regard loyalty as admirable even if the thing they are loyal to causes harm – I could admire someone who was loyal to the USSR, even though they shouldn’t be loyal to that.