Erm... not wanting to sound shirty, but have you read his book? There is a whole bunch of stuff in there refuting the argument that we need religions to tell us where our morality comes from, and it's pretty convincing, to my mind at least. He doesn't say where our morals come from, and he doesn't need to. He certainly doesn't argue that science is all there is.

What he does point out is that our morality cannot be solely dictated by religion, since religions have almost always been behind the curve, not ahead, when shifts in moral standards have occurred.

In a way, arguing that we need religions to address moral questions is ceding the argument to Dawkins already; it is a form of apologetics, nothing more. Whether or not they make us more or less moral cannot alter the truth value of what they tell us. As it happens, neither he nor I actually believe people are less moral without religion, but the question to be asked is, "what if they were?"

Personally, I don't think we need anything other than philosophy and politics to decide what is or isn't right. I would guess I am pretty close to Dawkins in my outlook on the universe, I don't have any faith in a supernatural entity. Nonetheless, somehow, I seem to have wound up with a moral sense. I don't think there is anything surprising about this.

Part of human evolution to the point we have now reached is the development of the ability to live in communities, to govern social interactions, and the building of cultures that surround this. It is perfectly explicable that we would, to make this work properly, have found adaptive advantage in putting together a moral code against theft, against murder, indeed against reneging on any social contract.

One last point: there is nothing reductive about any of this. I get the impression from your post that you are rather underwhelmed by the idea of a world that is "just science". Just as Christopher Hitchens argued in his (rather over the top) book recently, I find it hard to see how people could call a proper understanding of what science and rational thought has taught us about the universe and our own nature in any sense lacking, especially when placed alongside the prohibitive, parochial and uncannily man-made looking worldview supplied by religions and superstitions the world over (with perhaps an honourable mention for Buddhism, which, as A C Grayling is forever telling us, is better understood as a philosophy than a religion in the conventional sense).

Oh, and "what is right and wrong morally" may not be "measurable" in some cases, but I would sincerely hope that it can be "defined", otherwise we're a bit screwed, no?

I have not read Dawkins' book and I didn't see the programme. The thing is, I guess I have more respect for agnostics than atheists. There is a certain arrogance about being absolutely certain there is no God (an arrogance often shared by fundamentalist of all religions that not only declare certainty about the existence of God, but also that they are the only ones to have the proverbial "hotline"!). To answer Andrew, I guess the approach has to be, you could be right. But you could also be wrong. Your moral compass could have evolved, but equally, if God does exist, could come from God? The failure of all the major religions on all sorts of levels is an indicator of the frailty of our shared humanity, not an indication of the non existence of God. Belief in God is, like atheism, based on faith, not certainty.

I dont think you can say that religon i man made but science isn't. You seem to of got the impression that I am religous which isnt true at all. From the show and i was open that my comments were based on the show alone Dawkins gives the impression that everything but science is wrong, including culture and arts, he comes across as very cold.
I also think it is very dangerous for a Dawkins supporter to say that morals are definable in some set way or even by politics and philosphy, to my knowledge that sounds like the ten commandments. Somebody from on high telling us what is or isnt moral, whether it is written by Paul or Marx. Morals are perhaps unfortuanatly also a man made creation just like religon. It is conceivable that in some society cold killing is okay well actually look at our own culture where killing is okay if x y and z.
Im not calling for a return to complete dogma but pure science and logic could be just as bad. We are human we have human emotions and irrationalities. Dawkins ( from what i gather would deny all that)

Linda:

The thing is, I guess I have more respect for agnostics than atheists. There is a certain arrogance about being absolutely certain there is no God...

This point has been answered so many times by atheists that it continually astonishes me people still bring it up. Of course an absolute certainty about the non-existence of God would be a ludicrous opinion, and would have to be based on faith. Which is why that is neither my position, nor Dawkins's. There is always a technical possibility of almost anything. Yet nobody feels the need to call themselves "agnostic" on the subject of Russell's Celestial Teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Either you have faith that these things exist, or you believe them to be pretty unlikely. You cannot disprove them, but that doesn't mean you would call yourself "agnostic" about them. Nor would it be "arrogant" of you to dismiss them.

To answer Andrew, I guess the approach has to be, you could be right. But you could also be wrong. Your moral compass could have evolved, but equally, if God does exist, could come from God?

Which is why I wasn't claiming to be disproving God with this point. It was merely a reaction to Leslie's sentence about "what's right or wrong morally", which I think I may have slightly misunderstood the meaning of. Which brings me to...

Leslie:

I dont think you can say that religon i man made but science isn't.

Er.. I didn't. The point I would make, though, is that science and the wider philosophical standpoint that go along with it are ones dedicated to being as objective as possible, and therefore making its assertions as justifiable as anything can be.

You seem to of got the impression that I am religous which isnt true at all.

I didn't necessarily think that, but I was a little unclear as to what your objection was.

Dawkins gives the impression that everything but science is wrong, including culture and arts, he comes across as very cold.

I don't remember there being anything in the programme to give that impression, but perhaps this was a flaw of the programme, in that that is certainly not Dawkins's position, and perhaps it did not make that clear enough to those unfamiliar with his arguments. I can only urge you to read his book if that is your impression of him.

Of course, he is a scientist, indeed, he holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. As such, he is likely to be pretty enthusiastic about science, and he is always keen to emphasize, as I was, that there is nothing soulless or without its own majesty about the scientific worldview. But I certainly don't see that that amounts to a rejection of culture and arts; indeed, The God Delusion devotes a great deal of space to praising the worth of a good many cultural and artistic things (for want of a better word!).

I also think it is very dangerous for a Dawkins supporter to say that morals are definable in some set way or even by politics and philosphy, to my knowledge that sounds like the ten commandments. Somebody from on high telling us what is or isnt moral, whether it is written by Paul or Marx.

Er... I didn't say moral codes should be enforced on us by any external force (or at least, not many - I'm pretty sure you would agree that laws against, say, murder are generally a good thing). Indeed, as a liberal, it is an important part of my philosphy of life that as far as possible, we should be allowed to do as we wish (so long as it doesn't harm anyone, etc).

What I am saying, though, is that it must surely be possible to "define" moral questions in some way, otherwise they become meaningless. If all you are saying is "I think this is morally wrong because.... well because I don't want you to do it", fine. But if you want to build an ethical system that means anything more than that, you are, I'm afraid, going to have to go being all joyless and start defining things.

Im not calling for a return to complete dogma but pure science and logic could be just as bad.

Agreed, if it were enforced. But nobody is arguing for it to be. This ends up with the age-old confusion between engaging someone in an argument and a belief that they should be forced to agree with you. I have plenty of religious friends who I occasionally have arguments with, but that doesn't equate to my thinking that I or anyone else should be able to tell them how to think; merely the desire to engage them in a rational debate.

We are human we have human emotions and irrationalities. Dawkins ( from what i gather would deny all that)

Again, I can only register puzzlement at where you have got that impression from.

Anyhoo, I will stop banging on now!

Cheers,
Andy

no its been interesting andy, i'll admit my blog was made on some very quick notes on the one show that i watched and it was good to get input from someone who knew a little more. Its precisly what blogging is meant to be about, well that and a simple propoganda/election tool

Cheers. I apologise for the rather clipped tone of my first response; I am a bit touchy about this whole subject matter (on account of the occasional conversations I mentioned having with my religious friends), so I tend to jump in without hesitating for second thoughts. Probably not very becoming (or wise) of me!

I will stop there, since they say you should never post whilst potentially under the influence (just been helping my brother quell the anxiety of eve-of-results-night)!

Happy times and places,
Andy