Smart Atheist

Morals Without God?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/
By Frans De Waal
This topic seems to lend itself well to the intellectual readers of the articles in the Opinionater; Waal seems to find common ground with much of his audience by writing very reasonably and seemingly objectively. However, at the same time he is able to boldly make assertions that pertain to his area of expertise, primatology, without worrying too much about opposition to his views. Judging by the comments made on his article, people in general seem to accept his claims and highly respect his methods and opinions. Perhaps this is because his audience largely seems to be well-educated atheists who are bothered by religion and love to hear an intelligent scientist such as Waal present a logical argument against it based on his findings. While there are a few religious intellectuals who also comment on the article, their words are in general fewer and less accepted by other readers of the article, suggesting that they are in the minority among the readers.
None of the audience, even the small religious part of it, seems to be able to argue much with Waal's findings since they are based mostly on results of experiments he, an expert, has personally performed and observed. His credibility is built up so high in this area of study that the most of the audience has no choice but to believe him and the extrapolations he makes. Furthermore, his argument is convenient for many people in the world today who rely more on their own intellect than on spirituality.
Waal’s reference to artist Hieronymus Bosch at the beginning of his article is especially effective in helping his readers trust him more. For one thing, it shows that he’s a broad thinker and that he considers others’ viewpoints. It is impressive to many readers that he grew up in the city after which the famous artist Bosch named himself and always admired his art even as a young person. However, for those who aren’t impressed by this, Waal mentions that this does not make him an expert. The subliminal message here is that although he grew up surrounded by great art and is an open-minded, well-rounded person, he isn’t using this to flaunt his knowledge or credibility on this topic; he’s just using the reference as an introduction to his argument.
Near the beginning Waal also makes sure to mention he’s a primatologist, which immensely builds readers’ trust for him; much of the audience will not be able to argue about many of his claims since he himself has observed them. These claims - the ones he has observed himself as a primatologist –he makes boldly and without equivocation. This makes them even more irrefutable. Waal is careful, however, to be less assertive about those points that might be more arguable or about which he’s is not an expert. For example, in presenting Bosch and his depictions of humanity, Waal doesn’t outright state how it is; he instead discusses how Bosch’s art “seems” to depict humanity. Since this bit of information seems to be slightly out of his expertise and less than obviously true, Waal makes this claim with less assertion to as to appease those who might have thought about arguing against his presentation of this information.
Next Waal makes references to his rivals, to those who would use science to prove spiritual ideas. He concisely attacks the very basis of their faith, inferring that they use every bit of scientific evidence in their favor and then use their belief in “Intelligent Design” to avoid arguments with atheists which they would undoubtedly lose. For anyone who might start to doubt the truthfulness of these bold comments, Waal gives a prime example: Marc Hauser, a “Harvard colleague” who numerous times has “been accused of scientific misconduct, including making up his own data.” And again here, instead of presenting this incident as proof that they’re wrong and he’s right, he merely states that “one misconduct won’t make a difference.” So although he builds credibility by mentioning the scientific follies of his rivals, he avoids any accusations of being fallacious by not basing his argument solely on their wrong-doings, but on his own reasoning and logic.
After appearing reasonable by not jumping on his rival’s misconduct, he boldly states that humanity is always finding reasons why people are so unique and superior and that these reasons rarely last more than a decade. Just when the more religious part of his readers may be starting to disagree, Waal proceeds to present a masterful argument, based not only on his own findings as an expert primatologist, but also on the findings of Charles Darwin and his colleague, Sarah Brosnan. Throughout the article Waal, although he himself knows a lot about the subject matter, references other experts who back up his ideas while also using effectively using examples of his opponent’s to strengthen his argument.
Waal’s comparisons of chimpanzees with humans are intriguing and thought-provoking., The many parallels he draws are eye-opening to many readers, most of whom probably don’t know a lot about chimpanzees. By describing how animals help each other, sympathize, and try to make up with each other after fights, he influences the readers’ opinions and strongly supports his own claims. However, he is reasonable and admits also the differences between chimpanzees, that he cannot call them “moral beings” because of their lack of ability to judge the appropriateness of their own actions.
Towards the end of the article, Waal makes statements that convince the reader once and for all that his goal is not to uselessly criticize religious people; his goal is to argue things as he really sees them. He could have expressed his views about why religion is pointless, false, and just a way of governing people, but instead he makes the open-minded statement “what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in their religion?” Here he admits the limits of science; that although science is useful in finding out “why things are the way they are, or how things work” or in “understanding what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does,” it is hardly able to explain the meaning of life or “offer moral guidance.” Waal, an advocate of science, knows the limits of his own field of interest and expertise and he does not cross them to attack someone else’s beliefs because, for one thing, he doesn’t see any point in it useless criticism and because his science cannot explain some things that religion does. These statements are make the whole article more credible and understandable for a bigger audience, just enough to attract some religious people but not enough to lose his strong atheist group of supporters. He admits that some things about the issue are impossible to know, such as how would our morals look if we never had religion; he doesn’t try to explain things that are not known.
In conclusion, Waal makes a convincing argument which is difficult to refute because so much of it is based on his own scientific findings. While his argument is strong, he is careful not to exit the bounds his knowledge of science creates so as not to create a fallacious argument that would not go unnoticed by many of his intelligent readers. He recognizes the fact that ideas are constantly developing and by presenting this article as his viewpoint this issue right now, he strongly build his credibility and provokes the reader to deeper thought into this interesting topic.