The main purpose of the current assignment is to analyze the viewpoints of one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century – Robert Dworkin, in its famous works devoted to considering the moral values of the contemporary society. In particular, the following paragraphs will focus on his last book “Religion without God” that discusses the most prominent questions of religious nature being actual for all the social groups of contemporary society.
The book is actually based on the assumptions made by Einstein from the religious point of view. In particular, his famous assumption about the religion being able to “manifest themselves in the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, and which our dull faculties can comprehend only in the most primitive forms” ("Religion without God", 2016) has definitely inspired Dworkin in his attempt to consider these religious aspects.
Furthermore, Dworkin develops the statement of Einstein concerning the beauty and mystery about religion and concludes that any value appears to be objective and independent of mind; correspondingly, the same value appears to be rather immanent in the world. In addition, he denies the statements of naturalists about the only possibility to prove the object’s reality lies in its ability to be analyzed by the laws of nature.
Consequently, the people’s belief in God is the representation of such point of view due to the fact that the will of the God presumes fulfillment of a particular value that is not dependent on the objective reality. Therefore, the freedom of religion and belief comes not from the social respect for a particular belief in God, but as a logical result of understanding the aforementioned ethical independence ("Religion without God", 2016).
The same concept of ethics is applicable for the most prevalent social questions nowadays. Dworkin explains the questions of same-sex marriage, issues of abortion and euthanasia in the same manner. He does not really defines all these issues and questions as the actual values according to his own point of view: “It suggested that the fact that values conflict (I support gay marriages, while you – you monster – think they're a disgrace) indicates they can't be true” (Jeffries, 2011).
Therefore, the only thing that matters for him is the choice of the people regarding a particular issue, he believes that a person should be granted a right to express his/her freedom of having a homosexual marriage, to have an abortion for the pregnant women. Correspondingly, it is also up to every person whether to live or to die, whether there is a choice and according responsibility taken by a person.
Consequently, Dworkin highlights the fact that all the aforementioned characteristics of value as a social concept make these values inadequate and incorrect. In this regard, it does not matter, whether the aforementioned concepts are good, bad, beneficial or hazardous – they cannot be identified as social values and cultural norms according to Dworkin. Therefore, it appears more than obvious that these are the independent issues and should be also granted freedom of choice similarly to the freedom of religion.
In other words, the independence of these social issues from the social system and cultural norms from the philosophical point of view make the most sensitive and widely-discussed issues irrelevant and inappropriate to consider. They are personal from the logical point of view, as well. Thus, Dworkin supports the freedom of choice for all the aforementioned social questions (Dworkin, 1994).
Considering Dworkin’s “Religion without God”, it is worth stating first of all that it represents rather short book, which is explained by the publisher as the potential wish of the author to expand the thought expressed in it. Still, the importance of the book lies not in its length and not in the overall statement considering the religions and their place in social system. Instead, the book represents another repetition of the concept of personal God first expressed by the ancient philosophers and thinkers.
Still, the overall importance of the book lies within the reflection of author’s worldview; in particular, the point of view of liberal philosopher, who is definitely sympathetic towards the religion. What is more important, Dworkin appears rather not believing in God himself regardless of his liberal points of view expressed above. Furthermore, it appears more than interesting to see the approach of minimization of the religion’s importance expressed by the author according to his statements discussed above.
The book expresses two major viewpoints, both related to the concept of religion in terms of its history and its contemporary status. In particular, the nature of the religion is discussed in the first half of the book, while the second is devoted to the social freedoms associated with religion. Furthermore, considering the overall religion’s nature and its basis, the author concludes that a religion does not necessarily require any God and/or belief in him; instead, it requires a belief in some sort of objective value and sense of wonder associated with the supernatural.
According to this statement, Dworkin also defines atheists believing in objective meaning and explaining the universe with their own explanation of wonder as religious, as well. Therefore, he thinks it is logical to assume that the believers and atheists do not need to hold continuous disputes regarding the religion, as they share the same concepts. According to Dworkin, the existence of God is a minor accessory for the religion that is desirable, but not required for the religion’s functionality (Dworkin, 2013).
Another statement to consider is the association of moral and ethic values with the religion. In this regard, the theists tend to believe that these highly depend on the God’s existence. In other words, they believe that it was only Him who placed a particular knowledge and gift of life into the existence of humans. Otherwise, all of us would never know what was right and what was wrong. According to the book, it is logically incorrect. Dworkin states that the objective values tend to be objective regardless of the will of the God.
In other words, the author interprets the theists’ claims as God conducting a list of orders for the humanity to do. However, if God would command a human to commit a crime, it does not make this crime an act of sacredness and does not have any virtue in it. Therefore, the differences between the believers and non-believers are rather illusory. Once the masses face and accept this, the differences between the religions will not be prioritized; instead, the similarities will unite the people (Dworkin, 2013). Correspondingly, there is no need to protect the religion and freedom of faith due to the fact that it could not be logically accommodated.
Indeed, from the logical point of view, the Dworkin’s attitude towards religion can be easily understood. Moreover, it should be agreed that the differences between the religions, the confessions and even atheism are only formal. All of their respective followers believe in the same objective values, as it has been discussed earlier. Correspondingly, the current book represents a definitely unique point of view proclaiming the freedom of religion from the very same nature of the last.
Still, it is worth accepting that the current state of affairs associated with the religion has less in common with logic and rational attitude in expressing the religious beliefs. Due to the peculiarities of the human nature, the religion represents the vector of belief for the believers and the tool of executing significant power over the believers by the religious “authorities”.
In other words, due to the fact that religion has always been used as a leverage to define the social opinions and the attitude of the masses towards a particular issue, the public acceptance of the Dworkin’s conclusions would appear hazardous for the religious elite that is subordinate to the corresponding governments. Once the masses find out that there is no difference between religion and that there is no necessity in having a personal God, the minds of the people would become free of the religious and governmental impact.
Thus, it is worth concluding that Dworkin’s book definitely represents a valuable piece of information from the religious, philosophic and logical point of view. It should be agreed that the conclusions of the author hide colossal potential to deform the minds of the masses related to the religion. Still, while it is impossible to explain to an orthodox Christian that the Crusades were simply acts of killing and robbing the innocent people in the name of the God, it would also be impossible to explain the claims of Dworkin, as well.
The concept of religion without God would become unprofitable, unbeneficial and even hazardous for the religious and governmental elites of the nations. Further, having accepted that according to the claims of Dworkin, the religion does not require any attention and/or protection, respect and recognition, a massive leverage of shaping the social values and behaviors would be lost, which proves that the results of Dworkin’s book will not be officially recognized and implemented.
References
Dworkin, R. (1994). Life's dominion. New York: Vintage Books.
Dworkin, R. (2013). Religion without god. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jeffries, S. (2011). Ronald Dworkin: 'We have a responsibility to live well'. the Guardian. Retrieved 7 March 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/mar/31/ronald-dworkin-morality-dignity-hedgehogs
Religion without God. (2016). Hup.harvard.edu. Retrieved 7 March 2016, from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674726826
