Yesterday, I wrote a post about how the "new atheists" in America are failing miserably at being atheists because they refuse to accept the logical and philosophical consequences of their world view when it comes to the issue of morality.
Rather than accept the moral nihilism bestowed them by their atheism they instead espouse moral objectivism, despite the fact that such a position cannot be rationally affirmed on a world view that does not accept the existence of God.
You can see that post here.
While doing some research for my post yesterday, I came across a short three paragraph blog post that perfectly summed up my charge against the "new atheism" concerning this matter.
The author of the post is James Kirk Wall an atheist, blogger, and author of the book "Agnosticism: The Battle Against Shameless Ignorance".
I'd like to offer some thoughts concerning his blog post which is titled "Colorado Movie Theatre Massacre: An Atheist Perspective".
Before I do let me say very clearly that I applaud James Kirk Wall for trying to offer a coherent and consoling secular perspective concerning the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado.
In fact, I wouldn't have even bothered with it if not for the fact that he shamelessly uses this horrific event as an excuse to make cheap-shots at theism.
This unblinking manipulation of a tragedy in order to attack believers in God deserves to be rebutted, especially when Wall's post so clearly exemplifies the inadequacy of toady's "new atheism" to stand on it's own two feet.
Well here we go:
It only takes Wall the second sentence of his post to make a claim that can in no way be substantiated on atheism, saying, "It's not fair what happened".
Fairness has no meaning when applied to highly evolved animals whose each and every action is determined by natural causes.
On atheism, what happened in Colorado was the result of nature's blind controlling influence on a random creature, whether one likes this conclusion or not.
So while I agree with Wall that the shooter is a "heartless psychopath", what, on his atheism, is the difference between this psychopath and the brave men who died shielding their girlfriends from gunfire, besides the fact that nature caused the shooter to "fizz" one way and the brave man to "fizz" another way?
I know these things are hard to hear, but on atheism this is the reality of the situation, whether atheists want to admit it or not.
Also, on atheism, how do we hold people morally accountable for actions they themselves are not in control of?
However, it is in his second paragraph that Wall launches into his attack on theism:
"Atheists have no comforting lies to help deal with grief. We reject any notions of the spirit world, rebirth, resurrection or heaven to make believe death is not the end. We accept the cold realities of life being fragile and temporary. We also reject any notion that ruthless killers will go to heaven if they simply repent and accept religion before they die. We reject any warped morality that places brainless obedience over individual responsibility".
My point isn't to go on a rabbit trail and address Wall's unwarranted attacks on theistic dogma or misrepresentations thereof, but to challenge the idea that his brand of atheism offers "no comforting lies to help deal with grief".
In his post Wall says things like, we should live "good lives" and "value our lives and the lives of others", human life is a "sacred resource", and that the U.S is "infested with violence, corruption and greed".
But here is the point that Wall doesn't get: not a single word of the above--not a single word of it-- makes any sense on his atheism.
On atheism, we humans have no meaning, or compulsion to live "good" lives because their is neither "good", nor moral compulsion.
And for him to say that our lives are a "sacred resource" or to make any judgement about so-called "corruption" is completely unjustified on an atheistic platform, because humans have no worth and "corruption" is in the eye of the beholder.
Again, atheism is damned by logic and philosophy.
If the reader doesn't take anything else away from this post let it be that Wall's article is not an "atheist perspective" and that America has not seen consistent atheism in a long time.
The minute atheists start going around telling the America public at large that humans have no worth, there is no good or evil, and that people can't be held accountable for any crime they commit, the spread of atheism will be retarded in our country.
Because Americans, and people in general, understand that these sentiments simply aren't true.
I don't need empirical proof to tell me that anyone who would shoot a six year old girl point blank in a movie theatre is evil (that is what moral intuition is for).
Before I close, I want to put forth some questions Christians can ask our atheist friends and family members to help them to evaluate whether or not they are living out their atheism consistently:
1. What is the source of your moral values?
a. If they come from yourself, how can you condemn the actions of the murderer and rapist who simply acts on a different set of moral values?
b. If from nature, aren't your moral values subjective and therefore not binding, since nature changes and the evolution of human beings could have produced a different set of creatures with a different moral intuition?
2. What compels you to do good acts?
a. if something other than an objective source what makes that compulsion any more real than the god you don't believe exists?
b. if something like the "good of mankind" or the "flourishing of sentient life", what makes these things good and why, even if they are good, are we compelled to do them?
In closing, it is my hope that when atheists (including James Kirk Wall) see that their world view simply does not allow for objective good or evil, and genuine human value they will begin to look for a world view that does.
This can only happen as long as we Christians don't let the implicit moral assumptions of our atheist friends go unchallenged, but rather give them something to think about and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.