Published: Sun, Jan. 20, 2008 12:00AM

Modified Sun, Jan. 20, 2008 07:20AM

tool name

Universal constraints

Paulos accepts the existence of a Moral Law, but doubts that its universality has anything to do with God. He dismisses the argument by invoking an evolutionary explanation. Prohibitions of murder and theft, a standard of basic honesty, and a concern for children -- mores found in almost every society -- developed because adopting those standards of behavior helped those societies thrive. "Murdering one's neighbors and killing one's own children are not activities that conduce to the success of any group," Paulos asserts. This leads him to conclude that these natural constraints -- not God -- account for the similarities in the moral codes of disparate cultures.

Many believers will question Paulos' unsupported conclusions. When in our past did these widespread behavioral codes develop, they might ask. What data supports your hypothesis about natural constraints? Paulos does not directly address these questions. But others have.

In 2005, Frans de Waal wrote "Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are." It is a remarkable book recounting the author's decades of studying captive chimpanzees. He is convinced that his research with chimps can enlighten us about the origins of morality. De Waal believes that morals spring from emotions and that chimps (and other apes) experience those emotions. He provides loads of anecdotal data illustrating the chimps' capacity for kindness, for cooperation, for altruism -- the building blocks of human morality. De Waal's work establishes that our closest relatives are capable of empathy, leading him to conclude that "the building blocks of morality clearly predate humanity." Thus, universal morality did not spring from God; it is a gift from our primate ancestors.

De Waal's research buttresses Paulos' conclusion that universal morality does not prove God's existence. But Paulos does not need much buttressing. He is as sure-footed as a tiger as he prowls through the theocratic landscape pouncing on sloppy thinking. To a large extent he succeeds in demolishing the arguments of believers.

Minds won't change

Despite that, his book will likely not change many minds. The reason stems from another argument for God, the so-called argument from subjectivity. As Paulos puts it, some people "feel in the pit of their stomach that there is a God." Employing his usual combination of wit and logic, Paulos exposes the flaws in that argument. But what he cannot do is change the powerful longing for God that exists in many people. To shake that deep-seated yearning requires more than wit, logic and a parade of celebrity atheists. Paulos accepts this. "I have little problem," he writes, "with those who acknowledge the absence of good arguments for God, but simply maintain a nebulous but steadfast belief in 'something more.'"