good point. thanks for bringing this up. but this is not what i’m implying altogether. first let me say that the Chapter(s) on morality is Dawkins’ direct response to people (theologians, religious apologists) who *insist* that morality comes from religion and that people can’t be moral without God. so the key here is the “context” of Dawkins argument. Dawkins’, in my view, is *not* arguing with sophisticated theologians (if he is, then that’s where the limitation of his philosophy needs more elaboration). in fact, in the book, he has some good praises about spiritual figures like former Bishop John Shelby Spong. and here is what John Shelby Spong said about the New Atheists:

“I welcome the attention that serious atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are offering the world at this moment through their books. They are bringing what I regard as a deserved criticism and a necessary correction to what Christianity has become in our generation.”

[read more. note that a lot of response that Dawkins' received are coming from religious apologists who don't have the sophistication of Spong's philosophy or theology. but this is another level of discussion which i think distracts people from the political issues that the New Atheists are fighting for (e.g. intelligent design vs. evolution, homosexual rights, women's rights, to name a few.)]

that’s why it’s important to read the book so we could understand where Dawkins is coming from, so that our agreements or disagreements with them will come from a more informed position.

my two cents.

~C

Many theologians already agree with you and with Dawkins that religion is a “by-product of consciousness instead of the other way around.”

You seem to be implying that theologians who are critical of Dawkins’ ignorance on certain things (theology & philosophy) also hold the view that our structures of consciousness emerged out of religion — but this is not necessarily the case. This is definitely not the view of post-mythic theologians.

At any rate, to me it seems only logical: we created, and continue to create, religion. Something that we create is always a by-product of our structures of consciousness: religion in and of itself is not the “origin” of anything; religion is instead the languages, stories and dances we invent to communicate with each other about what is of ultimate concern to us.

Peace,
Mary

good question, Tom. first of, take note that in this post, i’m pushing more for a Spiral Dynamics angle than Wilber’s AQAL. Spiral Dynamics has, imho, an elegant answer to the issue that you brought up. i’m no expert in SD so i’ll leave it to experts to flesh this out. however, for the sake of this discussion, it seems to me that the SD has an answer to your question in the form of emergent cultures and cultural dynamics. in SD, there is no guarantee of an upward climb (hence the spiral) but the general trend (if we step away and look from the point of view of cultural development) suggests so. here’s an excerpt from Don Beck’s Stages of Social Development which he presented at the October 2000 State of the World Forum:

“Cultures, as well as countries, are formed by the emergence of value systems (social stages) in the response to life conditions. Such complex adaptive intelligences form the glue that bonds a group together, defines who they are as a people, and reflects the place on the planet they inhabit. These cultural waves, much like the Russian dolls (a doll embedded within a doll embedded within a doll) have formed, over time, into unique mixtures and blends of instructional and survival codes, myths of origin, artistic forms, life styles, and senses of community. While they are all legitimate expressions of the human experience, they are not “equal” in their capacities to deal with complex problems in society.”

from a (Buddhist) nondual point of view (whatever that means), your assertion might have some merit. but in the relative world where there is movement, mutation, chaos, emergence, and momentous leaps, the theory of Spiral Dynamics is a better heuristic tool for making sense of morality, and cultural and human development than any pet dharmas we have (integral, or otherwise)

that said, the trick is to pick which version of SD would lead to a better explanation of things. my personal pick is Beck’s Spiral Dynamics Integral (SDi) over Cowan’s plain vanilla SD. but that’s just me.

~C

So I must ask: If we accept that morality undergoes evolution, is this Zeitgeist progression in the wake of the spiralling upturn in human climb/advance/thinking/culture, or does morality ‘take wing’ and have its own agenda. Are we over many millennia advancing toward the morality that was always, somehow there?

I’m not arguing for God, but morality does seem to be a search for a fixed star. Otherwise looking back at the age of slavery we have to say it was OK and that oppression of women was OK in its time. The slaughter of American Indians? That gets a ‘pass,’ too.

I find myself halfway through the God Delusion as I read this (chapter before moral zeitgeist).

It is very helpful to have a developing integral backdrop as I’ve been peering through the “new atheist” books.

Lookin forward to the next part!