Dawkins and Company Seem Upset
I was just reading an article on the exploits of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Its an interesting and infuriating read. The secular humanists have owned our schools, our media, and government bureaucracies for decades and yet the author of this piece has the audacity to suggest that atheists are “the most reviled group in the country if not the world.”
The author implies this revulsion (if it were to exist) is a bad thing. By what moral basis does he make this implication?
I find it offensive to read atheist writings which presuppose morality. What is the moral good in furthering atheism? How does an atheist even define good? The creation can not mandate morality. There is no law without a lawgiver. The very argument that atheism is a better philosophic position presupposes an external system of measure in order to validate what exactly “better” means.
Today’s cultural melange of secular humanism (the belief that man is the pinnacle of evolution and the greatest currently known intellect in the universe) and postmodernism (all beliefs are valid) leave us no possibility for rational thought.
What do I mean? God established order. Humanism and postmodernism in concert deny the lawgiver and the laws themselves. The very laws that are placed aside are the ones you and I use to give meaning to words, to give meaning to our senses, and to provide a lens of rationality which focuses reality into something perceptible, understandable, and worthy of consideration. Without an infinite creator God there can be no point on which to hinge truth. The Christian God not only is the one true God, He is Truth incarnate. Jesus is the truth; without Him there can be no meaning because he gives meaning beyond this life. He created the universe, and that fact establishes a basis for accepting reality. If I am merely animated chemicals then how can I trust that I (or anyone else) am capable of rational thought? God created laws of order and rationality that give meaning to our thoughts and provide us an external check to our own processes.
Dawkins and company (though created in God’s image and capable of loving and being loved by their creator) can not provide you proof of their coherence because they have no basis to judge coherency except their own fallible thoughts. Why are Dawkin’s thoughts more valid than mine? Because he believes so? Because another mortal man agrees? Because a certain number of mortal men or women agree? Truth is not democracy - It was created by God.
Without truth there is no morality - Tell those who don’t believe in God to stop using God’s standards to judge reality unless they’re gonna give Him the credit!
February 10 2008 03:43 am | Morality
Atheistic Morality on 10 Mar 2008 at 5:40 pm #
I find it offensive to read atheist writings which presuppose morality.
and
There is no law without a lawgiver.
So, do you good because you feel repercussions from your god if you don’t? Or… do you do good because it is the right thing to do? I understand this raises the question of how to define right and wrong, but philosophers have been handling this question effectively without religion for years.
I am so tired of this inane argument from evangelicals, than the only way to have morality is through the belief of their god. They fail to grasp the various world cultures, such as Taoists, have a moral code which exists outside of a theistic “lawgiver”. While Taoism may not be atheism, it certainly would be erroneous to call it a religion.
Back to point. Is it better to do something because you know that it is the right thing to do, or is it better to do something because you know that you will be punished by a spiritual father figure if you don’t? If you need the belief in a theistic being in order to know the difference between right and wrong, what does this say about you?
Two Channel Station on 10 Mar 2008 at 10:40 pm #
“…but philosophers have been handling this question effectively without religion.”
Wrong. They do not do this without religion, rather they criticize and deny the existence, and/or need for religion. By doing so they show religion is actually important.
Counterargument. Possibly off topic.
Atheism is faith based. An atheist must have faith in their knowledge, or supposed knowledge that God doesn’t exist.
Read this for more.
Atheism is Illogical
Atheistic Morality on 11 Mar 2008 at 5:31 am #
Wrong. They do not do this without religion, rather they criticize and deny the existence, and/or need for religion. By doing so they show religion is actually important.
Really? So, where was your religion when Confucius came up with his code of ethics? Before you reply about “Mandate of Heaven” (a Westernized literal translation of an ancient Eastern idea) I’d recommend you read up on it a bit. Eastern thought cannot be considered as blatantly religious as your religion is.
As for modern philosophy, there are plenty examples of philosophers who can derive ethics as a concept of reciprocity and basic Game Theory. In their case, doing the right thing is the only way humans can co-exist. This derivation does not say, “Do the right thing or else a god will punish you.” It says, “Do the right thing, or you cannot expect others to do right by you.” That is entirely different.
Atheism is faith based. An atheist must have faith in their knowledge, or supposed knowledge that God doesn’t exist.
I have heard this inane statement so many times, I can just about expect it from anyone who has faith. Atheism is the distinct lack of faith in the supernatural. You want to distort this concept into being a “belief that there are no gods”, instead of the “lack of belief in a god”. It takes no faith to examine the world around us, and come to conclusions based on facts. This is known as a naturalistic world view. It takes faith to read a 3000 year old fable, and believe that this is true with no other evidence to support it.
I don’t need “faith in [my] knowledge [that your god doesn't exist]” Instead, I need an unreasonable amount of faith to believe in your god, so I reject this belief based on its emphasis of faith and not facts. That is certainly not faith, it is the antithesis of faith. Faith requires a belief in something which cannot be proven. I am making it a point to reject that which cannot be proven.
Atheistic Morality on 11 Mar 2008 at 5:36 am #
An additional thought. You are also an atheist, about a great many religions and gods. Do you have faith in Zeus? In Ra? In Thor? Can you honestly call your lack of faith in these gods “faith that they do not exist?”
We are 99% the same. I just take my atheism one god further than you do (DELETED COMMENT HERE)
OC on 11 Mar 2008 at 6:57 pm #
Atheistic Morality,
Are you an atheist then? You sure play fast and loose with the term - no believing other gods exist and adhering to the existence of a creator God beyond the scope of this universe is quite different than asserting that no gods exist. Why the inane pot shot at Catholics? - Check my Rules of Engagement page.
I’ve heard this progressive atheism argument before - it doesn’t work here. We have widely divergent views about origins and the ramifications thereof because of my trust in God. I am not an a-Theist in any way.
OC
Atheistic Morality on 11 Mar 2008 at 7:29 pm #
Why the inane pot shot at Catholics?
It wasn’t a pot shot. The Catholics believe in trinity, which are three gods in one. They also have ascended, and pray to, the virgin Mary. However, they do not (yet) grant her the status of goddess, even though they pray to her, and they hold her separate from the other three gods. Hence, the 3.5 gods. You assume that I am insulting Catholics, when in fact, I am only making a distinction between your single god, and the concept of trinity / virgin Mary.
It is interesting that when we approach other mythology, no one jumps in and considers such cultural remarks as “pot shots”. Yet, the minute I examine your mythology, you go on the defensive. There was no insult intended, other than the offense that you took.
I’ve heard this progressive atheism argument before - it doesn’t work here.
Really? So, you instantly dismiss any philosophy that explains morality, but dismisses your god? Better not let an Objectivist hear you say that. They can go on for hours about their moral code, which is completely devoid of your “lawgiver”.
We have widely divergent views about origins and the ramifications thereof because of my trust in God.
You don’t know my views about origins, you are merely making an assumption based on your own personal prejudice of those who live life without needing your god to tell them what to do.
OC on 12 Mar 2008 at 2:00 am #
Atheistic Morality,
Ok, so maybe we got off on the wrong foot here. I apologize for making assumptions about what you believe. I’m not Catholic and I guess I over reacted to your comment. Thanks for the explanation. If you have the time would you be able to explain this objectivism you wrote about? The progressive atheism arguement is the one in which I’m purported to be just one God away from atheist and so we’re similar. I still don’t buy that line of thinking.
Thanks for coming back.
OC
CatholicMom on 24 Apr 2008 at 3:33 am #
Atheistic Morality,
I AM Catholic and I think saying Catholics worship 3.5 gods is not only a pot shot, it’s a lie. We worship one God in three Persons. We don’t worship Mary at all. We don’t think she is a goddess. We don’t pray to her, but we do ask her to pray for us, just as any Christian would ask a friend or family member to pray for his/her intentions.
Please, if you’re going to discuss a particular faith, get the facts straight.