Fran De Waal: We're not good because of God

[FaxModem1]

NPR

Frans de Waal's Bottom-Up Morality: We're Not Good Because Of God

by Barbara J. King
March 21, 201310:03 AM
Bonobos at the Lola ya Bonobo sanctuary near Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2006. Enlarge image

Bonobos at the Lola ya Bonobo sanctuary near Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2006.
Issouf Sanogo/AFP/Getty Images

In a book coming out next week called The Bonobo and the Atheist, primatologist Frans de Waal argues that morality is built into our species. Rather than coming to us top-down from God, or any other external source, morality for de Waal springs bottom-up from our emotions and our day-to-day social interactions, which themselves evolved from foundations in animal societies.

For 30 years, de Waal has authored books about apes and monkey that open our eyes to the bottom-up origins of our human behaviors, ranging from politics to empathy. In this, his 10th volume, he extends that perspective by writing, "It wasn't God who introduced us to morality; rather, it was the other way around. God was put into place to help us live the way we felt we ought to."
The Bonobo and the Atheist
The Bonobo and the Atheist

In Search of Humanism Among the Primates

by Frans De Waal

Hardcover, 289 pages purchase

Nonfiction
History & Society
Science & Health

More on this book:

NPR reviews, interviews and more

"The way we felt we ought to" has a long evolutionary history, so that de Waal's thesis depends crucially on numerous and convincing examples from our closest living relatives.

Azalea, a trisomic rhesus macaque (trisomic = born with three copies of a certain chromosome), had abnormal motor and social skills, in ways somewhat akin to humans with Down syndrome. Instead of punishing her "incomprehensible blunders," such as threatening the alpha male, the other macaques were accepting and forgiving of her until Azalea's death at age three. Female chimpanzees may confront and shut down an overly aggressive male, sometimes even pulling two adversaries close together for reconciliation, or prying rocks from an aroused males' hands.

In cases like these, animals are feeling empathy, then acting on that feeling with displays of kindness or help, behavior that de Waal calls sympathy. The empathy is purely embodied — literally felt in the body — and part of our evolved biology. "Our brains have been designed to blur the line between self and other," he writes. "It is an ancient neural circuitry that marks every mammal, from mouse to elephant."

Despite the sweeping nature of this last statement, what's great about the book are de Waal's careful distinctions. He's never naïve about animal goodness, as if it were hard-wired: how could he be when he has worked so closely for decades with chimpanzees, a species known for outbursts of brutal violence? De Waal sees the bonobo (of the book's title) as more empathetic than the chimpanzee. Bonobos share food, and even across different groups, enjoy sexy, peaceful and playful relationships. But nowhere is it a gentle natural world that he describes. His focus instead is the utter wrongness of Veneer Theory, the historically popular idea that our morality is "a thin veneer over a cauldron of nasty tendencies."

Further, de Waal doesn't go so far as to equate animal goodness with morality. "I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a 'moral being'," he writes. "There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves."

What sets human morality apart, he believes, depends on our greater powers of abstraction, and involves "a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment. At this point, religion comes in."

A scientist and non-believer, de Waal isn't saying here that religion is required for human morality, only that the two have been entwined throughout human history. Since I have wearied of the Richard Dawkins school of religion-bashing, in which belief is equated with dim-wittedness, I can only applaud de Waal's approach, as when he writes, "The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms ... . The true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma."

Do I agree with every word de Waal writes about bottom-up morality? Of course not (I'd be bored if I did). He becomes unnecessarily acerbic about atheism at times, asking as part of his frustration with neo-atheists like Dawkins, "What does atheism have to offer that's worth fighting for?" But surely fighting for the right to be seen as, and treated fairly as, a person who lives morally outside of any religious system is a worthy endeavor.

And when de Waal claims that we humans, like other mammals, "are totally preprogrammed in body and mind" for child-rearing, so that "we barely notice the daily efforts on behalf of our progeny," I want to assign him some primatology homework: Observe human parents for a while, specifically a single mom or single dad with a job and kids, or really any parent with multiple small children at home. (Even raising a single child and with an active helpful partner, believe me, I noticed my efforts on more than one day!) Isn't our helping behavior towards others more impressive when it's effortful rather than easy?

But the heart of de Waal's argument is spot on, both because he puts emotions front and center in his account of human morality and because he explains how that morality emerges out of animal roots.

Shall I conclude by offering some uplifting sentence about how de Waal's outlook gives us all hope for the future? In good conscience, I really can't. As de Waal knows, claims of evolved goodness are no more a blueprint for human behavior going forward than are opposing claims of evolved cruelty and violence.

So, to rehash an old argument, are we good because of our nature?

[PeZook]

But don't you see? This proves God built moral behavior into us!

[B5B7]

I can only applaud de Waal's approach, as when he writes, "The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms ... . The true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma."

In other words, "The enemy of science is not religion, but the true enemy is religion."
Also, given de Waal's proposition of innate morality, then religion is a source of immorality.
So we can phrase the OP topic as "We're not good ... because of God".

"It wasn't God who introduced us to morality; rather, it was the other way around. God was put into place to help us live the way we felt we ought to."

I disagree that God was introduced for this reason, or that It performs this role. "God", like other gods, was created by humans to fulfill some needs that they had at the time, with specific roles being assigned to specific gods. "God" was an attempt to create an all-purpose god that combined all the properties of the other gods (of course, one of the consequences of this is that whereas there were male and female gods, the mono-god had only one sex - male. Logically it should have been neuter, but that didn't satisfy the needs of its creators, who were old style patriarchs).

[Zwinmar]

Morality defines god, not god defines morality. Ethics are in place to help a group live together without too much conflict, what better what to do this than to artificially create something greater than themselves to appeal to rather than just your lice ridden neighbor?
After all, it is easier to follow someone who is better than ones self than it is to follow the dictates of ones peers.

[Adam Reynolds]

I can only applaud de Waal's approach, as when he writes, "The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms ... . The true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma."

In other words, "The enemy of science is not religion, but the true enemy is religion."
Also, given de Waal's proposition of innate morality, then religion is a source of immorality.
So we can phrase the OP topic as "We're not good ... because of God".

As dogma is the logical outgrowth of religion, especially a scriptural religion(such as the obvious big 3), this statement does seem extremely contradictory. Especially given the original definition of dogma is from religion. However, he does somewhat have a point in that there are other forms of dogma that are equally dangerous such as the economic philosophies of Marxism or Objectivism(the Ayn Rand version).

[Ziggy Stardust]

In other words, "The enemy of science is not religion, but the true enemy is religion."
Also, given de Waal's proposition of innate morality, then religion is a source of immorality.
So we can phrase the OP topic as "We're not good ... because of God".

Dogma and religion are not necessarily interchangeable. For example, there is a massive difference between somebody who goes to their local church out of a sense of community and tradition and has never read or thought about the Bible as it applies to every day life and an evangelical preaching fire and brimstone to homosexuals. I don't really ant to get into that argument, but it is pretty obvious that De Waal is talking about strict dogmatic belief (regardless of denomination ... or even religion, as Adamskywalker pointed out, as non-religious dogmas such as Rand objectivism, Ron Paul libertarianism, fascism, anarchism, etc. do exist) and not general spirituality/religion, which tends to be rather neutral in most applications.

And technically de Waal isn't arguing for innate morality, but rather that the qualities often described as being under the umbrella of "morality" are evolved structures. It is a subtle difference, but actually a very significant one.

Similarly, it is a logical fallacy to say that religion is inherently a source of immorality based only on the premise that morality is innate. (And, in fact, all de Waal said is that dogma is the enemy of science, which isn't even a moral statement, further rendering your statement inaccurate).

[Algebraist]

I think most of us would agree morality is not an artificial construct for an inherently immoral species! It's always difficult to separate nature from nuture but from introspection most of us feel there is something fundamental to our social species that helps define its morality. Only a Psycopath/sociopath wouldn't perhaps feel it. It's good to have a study on another species to demonstrate that the evolutionary make up of the minds has a morality structure in built, with the mechanism largely being the ability to emphasise with others and put the well being of others alongside your own, and not just your offspring. Obviously looking after your offspring is commonly seen in a large proportion of animal species.
Dogma is the set belief system of a particular religion or organisation. Something you are meant to believe in if you are a true member. Although in fact that Dogma may change in certain areas over time and certain areas may be up for debate. For example believing in Christ the saviour is essential Dogma for Christians but belief that being gay is immoral is up for debate. We have an innate ability to accept others in our 'tribe' as one of us. Competing against that is an instinct to reject outsiders, unkowns as 'enemies ' and Religion reflects both of those instincts, so does morality in fact any social construct generally reflects this. As society and our knowledge and understanding developed older dogma can become a drag and ultimately may be rejected and this does happen. So yes we need thought and enquiry not to be replaced by Dogma but this saying a rejection of religion