The Amorality of the Free Market

The Emptiness of Theology

by Richard Dawkins

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper The Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self replicating molecules. We know how the principal of self replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has conclusively been proved wrong.

Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria.
Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them; I have never heard any of them say anything of the smallest use; anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't effect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

"The Emptiness of Theology" by Richard Dawkins published in "Free Inquiry" Spring 1998.

The *suffering* of the rich *because* of the luxuries they cannot live without is the lie propagated by those who would justify the total indifference of most rich towards the existential needs of the poor.

A-Gnostic - >> Some may argue that he does not suffer from this monstrosity of selfishness since he obviously lives an easy life of wealth and luxury. But his ego driven self is continually searching for relief of his own suffering through the accumulation of material wealth.

This is a common lie propagated by those who would try to convince the poor and needy about the >> suffering

A-Gnostic - >> Some may argue that he does not suffer from this monstrosity of selfishness since he obviously lives an easy life of wealth and luxury. But his ego driven self is continually searching for relief of his own suffering through the accumulation of material wealth.

This is a common lie propagated by those who would try to convince the poor and needy about the >> suffering

An excellent example of the personal suffering that occurs due to a greedy, egocentric dominated consciousness was aired on CBS Sixty Minutes on June 1, 2008. The profile of Tom Perkins, a self made wealthy venture capitalist who is trapped in his attachments to material goods, offered a great example of an ego self driven person. One example shown during the profile was his obsession with owning the largest privately owned sailboat in the world. While discussing the price of the yacht, Mr. Perkins was too embarrassed to reveal the actual price of the boat because even he was aware of the good that could have been done around the world to alleviate suffering of others with his money. His better nature of consciousness exists but is clearly overshadowed by his overwhelmingly dominate egocentric nature.

Some may argue that he does not suffer from this monstrosity of selfishness since he obviously lives an easy life of wealth and luxury. But his ego driven self is continually searching for relief of his own suffering through the accumulation of material wealth. Despite the fact that he should never have to work again and could provide great service to his fellow humans and other sentient beings of earth, he proclaimed that he was selling the largest sailboat and seeking a new nautical toy: a sports submarine.

JWS,

In some respects greed is the inability to differentiate between one's needs and one's wants.

Greed is worshiping stuff or the thing that buys stuff rather than God.

From a Jewish perspective, I am reminded of two commandments: Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not covet.

Enough said.

As a rich New-Age Guru with a thriving business enterprise what role does greed for money, power and fame play in your life?

How much of the money you earn is used for selfless causes?

Deepak,

Greed is immoral and like the post below, more importantly; it's coveting! nothing more to say...

Mr. Chopra, I'm afraid, has not contributed much to what ought to be a real debate over the issue of reconciling the pursuit of economic self-interests with Christianity. The title of his article alone skews the debate. Wouldn't "The Amorality of Rampant Consumerism" have been better, not just in terms of a headline, but in terms of how it might have shaped the whole debate? The free market is a given. How much and on what products individuals spend their money is up for grabs.

Mr. Chopra then makes a second mistake by raising the devil theory. He picks out a stereotype from a fictional movie to try to make his points. Why not have focused on real corporations? But even more to my point--why not focus on Christians as consumers, not on stereotypical Wall Street villains?

Raising the old chestnut about the Gulf wars being fought solely on oil takes us even further from the truth.

Jesus Christ was an itinerant preacher who never owned many more possessions than the clothes on his back. His entire earthly ministry was one of compassion and concern for the poor, the powerless, and the dispossessed. His closest associates came from that strata of society.

Yet, today, he is represented on earth by the rich, powerful Roman Catholic church, which operates out of massive cathedrals? Or by Protestant denominations and churches, whose leaders do not seem to want for material goods and many of which seem to be trying to out-do each other in who can build the biggest mega-churches and pay their pastors the biggest salaries? Not to mention the TV evangelists whose greed and schilling for donations has become a national joke without deterring them one iota from continuing to do it?

I look forward to Christian voices talking to me about the disconnect between Jesus and his affluent followers who see no contradiction at all between his life and teachings and the greedy, rapacious lives as consumers that they lead. Mr. Chopra fell far short of the mark.

GARYD, I also noticed that Bishop Wright did a similar thing in that he defined greed in purely relatavistic terminology which left me unsatisfied. In thinking about it, an alternate definition occurred to me:

Greed is the type of desire and resulting action that occurs in the absence of Agape love.

Agape love can happen on an individual basis and it can happen in the private sector (e.g. thinking in terms of the good of a company's employees, shareholders, etc.). But I still wonder if my definition is too simplistic.

Greed VS. Need is a balance to which is your own lifes true test. Understanding greed is to understand human nature. Human nature has been self destruction and recreation in a cyclical downward funnel. The only thing that religion brings is sharing greed in a way to make the associates believe they are not living in sin, but supporting greatness. In pure essence, greatness comes from within, and from within is the richest treasure of all. And at that treasures core is love of all, either good nor evil which are parts of duality and opposite ends of a whole. We all are greedy and selfless. There is only one difference, which lays in your core of consciousness and perspective and is visible to everything else that shares existance with what you think is reality.

Exactly what is greed? Chopra marches exceedingly far around the block but never manage to quite define the term.

What do the rest of you think?

As someone in the private sector, I see the portrayal as very one-dimensional. Sectors, such as the financial sector, tend to move money where money is to be made. Sometimes this gets into very questionable areas morally speaking.

Large corporations present similar conundrums. One advances through a large corporate bureaucracy by excelling at assignments. One has little control over the nature or effect of these assignments. One could be developing a green technology or setting up oil rigs along the coast of an impoverished African country. What is the effect of both activities?

The problem with all bureaucracies, governmental or corporate, is few are truly in-charge although everyone has some kind of contribution to the end result. Having worked in both kind of bureaucracies, one is sometimes faced with a moral dilemma that can only be solved by walking away. The individual has little leverage. To walk away is to leave behind years of hard work, however. Amoral and immoral actions often arise from very mundane considerations.

What I see now in my work is very different. Small scale entrepreneurialism offers many opportunities to dream, put shape to your dream and offer it to the public. While Gordon Gekko may be the dark side, consider the good that the telephone, the transistor, and the PC have brought to the world. These came from the private sector. Their creators were not primarily out to make a buck to but bring shape to their dreams. In the process some made very big bucks but still did so with their true passion which they saw as a societal good.

Let's look at the world communism brought us and the one free markets brought us. The world has decided on the latter for good reason. It is easy, cliched and inaccurate to use the Gordon Gekkos as the metaphor for all of the private sector. Our world is always messy and filled with moral ambiguity. He is not the only metaphor. Jack Kilby and Bob Noyce offer equally compelling examples.

If faced with a world led by supposedly moral religious leaders (let' consider religious oppression in Iran and the Catholic Church's child sexual abuse scandals) or corporate leaders, I'll opt for the latter. While amoral capitalism has some real down sides, what we would face in a world led by moralists?

Mr. Chopra, you have framed the quandary of greed well. Many think of only the individual, but many of our religious teachers/prophets point to the community also. And there are other contributers to this site that have pointed this out. In short, Greed can help one individual at the expense of another, and it can similarly help one community at the expense of another.

Greed seems to be easily defined as a relative concept, dependent on cultural bias and worldview. Is there any aspect to it that is absolute?

Greed manifests from the ultimately illusory ego self which continually seeks to attach itself to “things” and “others”. Humans have suffered from both the internal and external consequences of egocentric thoughts and acts for millennia. If more people could realize the interdependent nature of all life and things in the universe (Thich Nhat Hanh calls it “interbeing”), and overcome the illusory independent self, then many of the world’s egocentric caused problems would cease.

Did the evolution of our species allow us to create vivid conceptual images of the past, present and future as a survival technique in a world with bigger, stronger competition? Is not the knowledge of good and evil a manner by which intelligent, self-aware beings conceptualize their apparent reality? Humans conceptualize their surroundings and phenomena in almost every moment of consciousness. Another necessary strategy for survival is the ability to distinguish one’s self from other selves. Other animals also seem to be able to distinguish their individual entities from other entities but to our knowledge, we may be the only animals to have evolved to the point of conceptual self reflection. (Genesis-they knew they were naked). But doesn’t our false, complex creation of an illusory “self” separate each “individual” from the true nature of the universe: Oneness!
If one looks deeply into their existence, one can determine that humans are not separate entities from the rest of the universe. In other words, we as physical beings are intimately connected to other “things” in the universe. We cannot survive without water, oxygen, vegetables, fruit, etc. and, therefore, we are a “part” of the “whole” Our ability to distinguish ourselves from other humans or animals or plants is an evolutionary strategy for self survival. But when you combine our intellectual abilities of conceptualization with our self awareness, we “create” a complex selfish greedy entity. Within our thoughts over our lifetimes, we create an entity of self that attempts to protect itself from others and attach itself to people and to things. In Christian terminology this selfishness is defined as sin. Selfish acts and thoughts always cause the selfish person to suffer. Also, since in true reality we are part of all things, when we are selfless in thoughts and acts, we are one with God. Is this not essentially what history’s great spiritual teachers were teaching?

This discussion intends to paint a portrait of basic human psychology in order that we may point our moral compasses towards a brighter future for humankind. Yes, I must seek out sustenance for my individual existence to maintain life and well being. But do I have to maintain a luxurious lifestyle while millions of fellow humans suffer from malnutrition and impoverished living conditions? Should we interact with each other globally by continuing to emphasize our differences and not our similarities? Should we continue to allow corporate greed to victimize poor people throughout the world?
One problem with our current inability to fully sustain an enlightened world is our selfish economic systems that encourage selfish motivations in our daily lives. With cooperative economic systems in place, we would not have to struggle for survival in a selfish manner.

It is difficult to recognize our egocentric nature whenever it arises but through mindful practice and enlightened education, we could be on the right path. To create an evolution of consciousness amongst our species, we must seek our Buddha nature, Christ consciousness that exists within us all but is hidden behind the greedy ego self. And finally to quote the great American Christian minister Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

Greed is not good. Greed is useful. And not all the time. Greed brought us the tech bubble and now the subprime bubble. Greed also brought us technological innovation, as well as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and drug dealing. Drug dealers are the ultimate capitalists, putting profit ahead of all else. Just like unrestrained biological growth is cancer, so too unrestrained capitalism.

Capitalism is not a religion. It is a mere economic system. It has its advantages and disadvantages. Left alone, it will run amuck. See above. Watched and regulated carefully, it can benefit society.

There is left, there is right and there is up.

Hmmm, greed?? Everyone knows the definition so let us look for early examples in an interesting domain, the founders and foundations of religions.

In Islam, we have the greed-lust driven, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating founder of said religion the long-dead Arab, Mohammed.

In Christianity (including Mormonism), the "historic" founder was the simple preacher man, long-dead Jewish fellow, Jesus. Not much greed there but one can make a case for the following steps for the start of greed in the said religion:

Christian economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed.

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies.

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

Judaism - Because the foundations are so mythical, it is impossible to be historical about greed in said religion. The historical King Herod and his off-springs were with the assistance of Rome, however, were a very greedy bunch.

Hinduism and Buddhism- A Google search will take you to many instances of greed in the leadership of said religions even though like other religions greed is a major sin and disorder.

The reference to Yeshua bar Yusef is interesting. Like most Jewish prophets, Yeshua recognized the inherent evil in a social system in which 80% labored like slaves to keep 20% of the population in luxury and wealth. Any "rich man" who was rich under that system seems not to have a place in the Kingdom of God. Yet Yeshua had a disciple--Yehudah--who was Keeper of the Purse. He preumably paid the taxes due to Caesar. Yeshua accepted a gift of expensive perfume from a female admirer. He walked that thin line with care and like the prophets called on others to do the same. "Free" enterprise is not free. It costs somebody something in the end. We need to be diligent and thoughtful about our application of the enterprise part so that the free part benefits the many rather than the few.

To be greedy is to covet.

Ex 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s."

Covetousness is an immoderate love of money, the root of all evil, an insatiable desire of having more, and of having more than a man’s own and never having enough. Greed is a form of coveting.

The New Testament tells us more abbot the nature of coveting. In Col 3:5 we find this: “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”

This time we see how coveting is related to idolatry. Of course, we know from the second commandment that idolatry is a sin. So these things are very well connected. The covetous man, and the idolater, worship the same matter and substance, even gold and silver; the covetous man lays up his money, makes no use of it, as if it was something sacred; he looks at it, and adores it, and puts his trust and confidence in it, and his heart is so much set upon it, that he neglects the worship of God.

So yes to be greedy is always wrong and when greed finally leads to the full blown sin of covetous behavior, this is what causes wars and murder and all kinds of terrible things.

Deepo, you're a fraud!

'Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of “pretty childish” legends and belief in God as a “product of human weaknesses,” according to a letter to be auctioned this week.

Einstein, who was Jewish, also rejects the notion that Jews were God’s chosen people. '