Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

More Thoughts On the Failure of Atheism

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".

Amen!

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.

Why?

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.    

2 comments:

  1. 1. What is the source of your moral values?
    -Nurture vs Nature- my environment, family, friends, learning or not learning compassion, making mistakes and learning from them

    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?
    -Not all atheists are alike~in our society we have agreed that physical and mental abuse is not okay, therefore we punish those who incur harm on others. Those laws are based on a collective of men. They do have a different set of morals and they get good feelings from things that we don't/inbalance of chemicals in the brain/lack of love as a child/etc.
    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?
    -Not binding, I can change my mind at anytime. I choose to be a good person (productive in my society) beacuase I want to be.~That is the beauty of evolution! That is why we are all special and beautiful and connected. We were lucky enough to be made of the dust of stars and to evolve into us from a tiny cell. Our purpose is to simply live (in my opinion). Evolution is not a theory as you think of a theory, it is a scientific theory, which is different. More and proof to prove it to be true. You can only deny it for so long, then what?


    2. What compels you to do good acts?
    - A smile, a feeling of gratitude, a feeling of love, gratefulness, self-worth and esteem

    a. if something other than an objective source what makes that compulsion any more real than the god you don't believe exists?
    -feelings are not determined by an invisible man-there is an area in the brain that determines our feelings(proof of that)
    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?
    -We are compelled because of our society and peers.

    I think both sides are using this awful shooting(s) to promote their own agenda. God is good! HE saved me! That was a bullshit blog, if I ever read one. At least loved some of the people in the movie??? And using it to say there is no god is weak, because this incident has no proof of anything other than a young man shot a bunch of people in a movie.

    I can tell you like Dr Craig. He excells in math and debates. His game is to confuse the audience with PHD level math and debaticals while circling around the truth-which he knows. He has to confuse the audience to make a point. Faith is not logical, it should not be debated as such. He has never won a debate (I have read most of his debates), yet he claims to. His logic has no logic. Had he grown up in Isreal, he would be Jewish or atheist. Think of more countries and if he had been born there..what is their religion? How can everyone be born into a religion and it happen to be the correct one? You were raised christian..think it's a coincidence that you are christian? r u republican? your family is. I bet you are too. raised that way? were you taught to think or taught what to think? your posts are copies from other christian debaters....I have read them all. and found them all on the internet. I think it would be great to see a post that was not stolen from online and is unique to you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you, Anonymous, for answering the questions I put forth!

    Let's examine some of those answers!

    When we look at your answers to questions 1 and a, we do indeed see that your moral code is a subjective, sort of "herd morality". So when you point out that our society has come to see harm towards others as a punishable offense (what about unjust war?), I can appreciate that you understand when someone goes against the grain, taking pleasure in hurting others, he is not doing anything wrong, but simply flouting the herd morality. So, again, you can only condemn someone on the basis of a subjective "herd morality" we've made up.

    In your answer to question b, you basically say yes to the question. If that's the case then one is not beholdened to anything that society would consider immoral. We can rape, steal, murder, lie, and cheat, without fear that we're doing anything wrong. Does that sound about right to you?

    In answer to question 2.a, you say that your feelings are real and they compel you to do good acts.

    Well, by your own admission your definition of good is subjective, and therefore meaningless so I'm at a loss at how you say that your feelings really compel you to do good acts when "good" in the moral sense doesn't actually exist, but is whatever you want it to be.

    Also you answers of "A smile, a feeling of gratitude, a feeling of love, gratefulness, self-worth and esteem", could ALL be used as justifications to do evil acts as well.

    The rest of your comment is just random libel against me and Dr. William Lane Craig so I'm not going to bother with it.

    Thanks for commenting, Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete