Honest Atheism
This is the first (real) post of my new personal blog, and it will be... to put it bluntly...disturbing and to some, depressing. This is intentional. My goal is simply to get people to really THINK about what it is that they believe, and to see the logical conclusions of what they believe about ultimate reality.
Just a few months ago, the Reformed theologian and writer R.C. Sproul passed away. Like so many others Dr. Sproul's teachings and writings left an indelible mark on my thought life.
There are so many things he said and taught that affected me, it would be difficult to list them all here. One idea, however, has really stuck with me through the years. It has to do with being honest with one's worldview (or one's life philosophy); or to put it another way, following one's worldview to it's logical conclusion. This idea, of course, is not original to Sproul. Before him Francis Schaeffer also wrote and taught extensively on this.
Sproul taught that when all of the various worldviews are boiled down to their basic components, there are only two in the end for us to choose from - two views of reality in which all people must put their ultimate hope and trust: full orbed Classical Christian Theism or Atheistic-Nihilism. I fully agree with this assessment. Like Sproul, I am also fully aware how how this understanding appears to commit either/or fallacy in logic. I don't think it does. Either there is a God and all that Christian Theism implies (including miracles, the afterlife, and the resurrection of Christ from the dead); or there is NO GOD, no afterlife, and life is completely and utterly absurd.
What I find quite interesting is that many atheists, as well as those who are a-religious, or hard agnostics, ACT as if life has meaning, significance & value (I think of Sam Harris, and others...). They conduct their affairs and live their lives as if there REALLY IS ultimate meaning and significance. And to many, their lives ARE full of meaning. I am certainly not saying here that atheists can't have meaningful lives. The question, however, is honesty. Where does the meaning come from? What exactly gives it meaning? Are they brutally honest with the implications of their atheism - of there being no God? Do they look down the road to see where it leads - so to speak?
I remember one lecture from Dr. Sproul where he went into a rather lengthy analysis and recitation of Edgar Allen Poe's poem, The Raven (which I also love). Sproul, who was a master communicator, read the most poignant parts of Poe's poem with bone chilling acumen. The poem, he argued, is about death, the finality of death, and whether there is hope beyond the grave. "Will he ever see his beloved Lenore again?" The writer - addressing the black plumed raven finally exclaims:
"Prophet!" said I, "thing of evil--prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that heaven that bends above us--by that God we both adore--
Tell this soul with sorry laden, if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden, whom the angels name Lenore?
In other words.... Is there life after death? Is this life all there is? Is there hope beyond the grave? Will he? Will he? Will he EVER see his beautiful Lenore again?
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."
The brilliance of the Poe is his ability to take us down the road to see that if there really is no life after death - then ultimately there is NO HOPE, and we will never see our loved ones again.
The narrator of the poem confirms this verdict.
And the raven never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming.
And the lamplight o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted--nevermore!
The father of twentieth-century atheism is, of course, the German philosopher, Fredrich Nietzsche. Dr. Sproul once recorded a lecture series on the history of Western philosophy and one of the things I remember him saying about Nietzsche, is that he followed his atheism to it's logical conclusion. He LIVED what he actually believed - unlike many atheists today (for which we can be very grateful!).
Nietzsche ushered in the twentieth century with his famous statement, "God is dead," and it was one of the bloodiest and deadliest centuries in all of recorded human history. There were two world wars with nearly 100 million dead, and countless millions dead by atheistic leaders (who also were honest with their atheistic worldview), such as Stalin, Pol-Pot and Chairman Mao Zedong.
Unlike atheists thinkers today, early twentieth century atheists were more like Poe who wrote with brutal honesty and didn't hide the implications of their atheism. Three French atheistic-existentialist philosophers come to mind: Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Simon de Beauvoir. Taking their cue from Nietzsche - Sartre, Camus and de Beauvoir, looked right down the barrel of the "loaded gun" and record what they saw.
I personally think it is wise for us to consider what they said, and ponder whether or not they are right. Most Christian philosophers today are completely engrossed in analytic philosophy, tinkering away and bickering with each other about truth-functional tables, or set theory, but hardly anyone is writing about, nor addressing the issues raised by Continental and European thinkers. I don't think it's an either/or proposition. I think both are needed.
In his book Being and Nothingness, Sartre stated that, "Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being - like a worm.. ..Man is a useless passion, ...I exist. That is all, and I find it nauseating." He then stated with candid honesty, that "It is therefore senseless in thinking of complaining since nothing foreign has decided what we feel, what we live, or what we are." In other words, because there really is nothing behind the universe and all of reality - it's no use in complaining. And he's right! To whom or to what should one complain to? Sartre writes, "Thus it amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone, or is a leader of nations." It ultimately doesn't matter, whether one is rich, poor, powerful, or weak...nothingness lies at the heart of all reality. No meaning. No hope. ......Nothing.
Camus goes a step further and proposed suicide (or escaping existence), as an option, because of the absurdity of life devoid of meaning or significance. In his book, The Myth of Sisyphus he stated, "There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that."
Kierkegaard also floats this idea, but both thinkers eventually dismiss it. For Camus suicide, wouldn't eliminate "the absurd," it would only make life more absurd. Camus is actually a very gifted writer, as is Nietzsche, and his books explore man's grappling for meaning in an otherwise "absurd universe." Camus actually did not consider himself an existentialist philosopher, he considered himself an absurdist, or "a philosopher of the absurd" (see, absurdism). Despite his opposition to the label, Camus is still best categorized as an atheistic existentialist philosopher.
I would like to conclude by considering a very sobering passage from Simon de Beauvoir. Interestingly, I came across her quote in one of the most amazing books on the three transcendentals of truth, goodness and beauty, by Thomas Dubay.
Simon de Beauvoir was a close associate of Sartre, and an early theorist of modern feminism, so it is not surprising what her views are. We may not like what she says, and it may disturb us - and very likely will. But sometimes we need "a cold glass of water in the face." I can think of no better existential wake-up call, than what de Beauvoir writes about coming to terms with her own death in her book, Force of Circumstance (1963).
She writes:
I loathe the thought of annihilating myself quite as much now as I ever did. I think with sadness of all the books I've read, all the places I've seen, all the knowledge I've amassed and that will be no more. All the music, all the paintings, all the culture, so many places; and suddenly nothing... Nothing will have taken place. I can still see the hedge of hazel trees flurried by the wind and the promises with which I fed my beating heart while I stood gazing at the gold mine at my feet: a whole life to live. The promises have all been kept. And yet, turning an incredulous gaze toward that young and credulous girl, I realize with stupor how much I was gypped [1].
Thomas Dubay responds:
"Refreshing honesty. Yes, for the thoughtful atheist death must loom as a crushing catastrophe. Everything good, noble, beautiful experienced throughout life is about to vanish...
not simply for a week or two,
not for a century,
...but forever.
On the atheist's premise death is a nightmare unbroken by a dawn" [2].
Yet.... death is only a nightmare IF atheism is true. If it is not, then there IS Hope.
[1]. Thomas Dubay, The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), pg. 99.
[2]. Ibid.
Just a few months ago, the Reformed theologian and writer R.C. Sproul passed away. Like so many others Dr. Sproul's teachings and writings left an indelible mark on my thought life.
There are so many things he said and taught that affected me, it would be difficult to list them all here. One idea, however, has really stuck with me through the years. It has to do with being honest with one's worldview (or one's life philosophy); or to put it another way, following one's worldview to it's logical conclusion. This idea, of course, is not original to Sproul. Before him Francis Schaeffer also wrote and taught extensively on this.
Sproul taught that when all of the various worldviews are boiled down to their basic components, there are only two in the end for us to choose from - two views of reality in which all people must put their ultimate hope and trust: full orbed Classical Christian Theism or Atheistic-Nihilism. I fully agree with this assessment. Like Sproul, I am also fully aware how how this understanding appears to commit either/or fallacy in logic. I don't think it does. Either there is a God and all that Christian Theism implies (including miracles, the afterlife, and the resurrection of Christ from the dead); or there is NO GOD, no afterlife, and life is completely and utterly absurd.
What I find quite interesting is that many atheists, as well as those who are a-religious, or hard agnostics, ACT as if life has meaning, significance & value (I think of Sam Harris, and others...). They conduct their affairs and live their lives as if there REALLY IS ultimate meaning and significance. And to many, their lives ARE full of meaning. I am certainly not saying here that atheists can't have meaningful lives. The question, however, is honesty. Where does the meaning come from? What exactly gives it meaning? Are they brutally honest with the implications of their atheism - of there being no God? Do they look down the road to see where it leads - so to speak?
I remember one lecture from Dr. Sproul where he went into a rather lengthy analysis and recitation of Edgar Allen Poe's poem, The Raven (which I also love). Sproul, who was a master communicator, read the most poignant parts of Poe's poem with bone chilling acumen. The poem, he argued, is about death, the finality of death, and whether there is hope beyond the grave. "Will he ever see his beloved Lenore again?" The writer - addressing the black plumed raven finally exclaims:
"Prophet!" said I, "thing of evil--prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that heaven that bends above us--by that God we both adore--
Tell this soul with sorry laden, if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden, whom the angels name Lenore?
In other words.... Is there life after death? Is this life all there is? Is there hope beyond the grave? Will he? Will he? Will he EVER see his beautiful Lenore again?
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."
The brilliance of the Poe is his ability to take us down the road to see that if there really is no life after death - then ultimately there is NO HOPE, and we will never see our loved ones again.
The narrator of the poem confirms this verdict.
And the raven never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming.
And the lamplight o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted--nevermore!
 |
| Illustration of the Raven by Gustav Dore |
The father of twentieth-century atheism is, of course, the German philosopher, Fredrich Nietzsche. Dr. Sproul once recorded a lecture series on the history of Western philosophy and one of the things I remember him saying about Nietzsche, is that he followed his atheism to it's logical conclusion. He LIVED what he actually believed - unlike many atheists today (for which we can be very grateful!).
Nietzsche ushered in the twentieth century with his famous statement, "God is dead," and it was one of the bloodiest and deadliest centuries in all of recorded human history. There were two world wars with nearly 100 million dead, and countless millions dead by atheistic leaders (who also were honest with their atheistic worldview), such as Stalin, Pol-Pot and Chairman Mao Zedong.
Unlike atheists thinkers today, early twentieth century atheists were more like Poe who wrote with brutal honesty and didn't hide the implications of their atheism. Three French atheistic-existentialist philosophers come to mind: Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Simon de Beauvoir. Taking their cue from Nietzsche - Sartre, Camus and de Beauvoir, looked right down the barrel of the "loaded gun" and record what they saw.
I personally think it is wise for us to consider what they said, and ponder whether or not they are right. Most Christian philosophers today are completely engrossed in analytic philosophy, tinkering away and bickering with each other about truth-functional tables, or set theory, but hardly anyone is writing about, nor addressing the issues raised by Continental and European thinkers. I don't think it's an either/or proposition. I think both are needed.
In his book Being and Nothingness, Sartre stated that, "Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being - like a worm.. ..Man is a useless passion, ...I exist. That is all, and I find it nauseating." He then stated with candid honesty, that "It is therefore senseless in thinking of complaining since nothing foreign has decided what we feel, what we live, or what we are." In other words, because there really is nothing behind the universe and all of reality - it's no use in complaining. And he's right! To whom or to what should one complain to? Sartre writes, "Thus it amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone, or is a leader of nations." It ultimately doesn't matter, whether one is rich, poor, powerful, or weak...nothingness lies at the heart of all reality. No meaning. No hope. ......Nothing.
Camus goes a step further and proposed suicide (or escaping existence), as an option, because of the absurdity of life devoid of meaning or significance. In his book, The Myth of Sisyphus he stated, "There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that."
Kierkegaard also floats this idea, but both thinkers eventually dismiss it. For Camus suicide, wouldn't eliminate "the absurd," it would only make life more absurd. Camus is actually a very gifted writer, as is Nietzsche, and his books explore man's grappling for meaning in an otherwise "absurd universe." Camus actually did not consider himself an existentialist philosopher, he considered himself an absurdist, or "a philosopher of the absurd" (see, absurdism). Despite his opposition to the label, Camus is still best categorized as an atheistic existentialist philosopher.
I would like to conclude by considering a very sobering passage from Simon de Beauvoir. Interestingly, I came across her quote in one of the most amazing books on the three transcendentals of truth, goodness and beauty, by Thomas Dubay.
Simon de Beauvoir was a close associate of Sartre, and an early theorist of modern feminism, so it is not surprising what her views are. We may not like what she says, and it may disturb us - and very likely will. But sometimes we need "a cold glass of water in the face." I can think of no better existential wake-up call, than what de Beauvoir writes about coming to terms with her own death in her book, Force of Circumstance (1963).
She writes:
I loathe the thought of annihilating myself quite as much now as I ever did. I think with sadness of all the books I've read, all the places I've seen, all the knowledge I've amassed and that will be no more. All the music, all the paintings, all the culture, so many places; and suddenly nothing... Nothing will have taken place. I can still see the hedge of hazel trees flurried by the wind and the promises with which I fed my beating heart while I stood gazing at the gold mine at my feet: a whole life to live. The promises have all been kept. And yet, turning an incredulous gaze toward that young and credulous girl, I realize with stupor how much I was gypped [1].
Thomas Dubay responds:
"Refreshing honesty. Yes, for the thoughtful atheist death must loom as a crushing catastrophe. Everything good, noble, beautiful experienced throughout life is about to vanish...
not simply for a week or two,
not for a century,
...but forever.
On the atheist's premise death is a nightmare unbroken by a dawn" [2].
Yet.... death is only a nightmare IF atheism is true. If it is not, then there IS Hope.
FOOTNOTES:
[1]. Thomas Dubay, The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), pg. 99.
[2]. Ibid.
“or there is NO GOD, no afterlife, and life is completely and utterly absurd”
ReplyDeleteYou use “absurd” in a way unfamiliar with most people. The atheist’s life is not absurd in the sense of being ridiculous. However, the atheist sees no absolute meaning or purpose in life.
But you do? I wonder what your evidence is.
“many atheists, as well as those who are a-religious, or hard agnostics, ACT as if life has meaning, significance & value”
And, indeed, it does. But perhaps you’re thinking of *objective* meaning, significance, etc. I’ve seen no evidence of such a thing, and the regular kind works fine for me. And if you’ll look up the words, I think you’ll find that the dictionary agrees with me.
“[Nietzsche] LIVED what he actually believed - unlike many atheists today (for which we can be very grateful!).”
So tell me: how do you think atheists like me are getting it wrong?
“it was one of the bloodiest and deadliest centuries in all of recorded human history”
Tell me who you blame this for. The atheists, I’m guessing? You need to show me how being an atheist is causative here.
As for Camus, etc., think about why your typical atheist today doesn’t feel despair. Does he have it wrong? Or maybe it’s you.
Delete[1]. I actually didn't give a precise definition of the word "Absurd," but I meant it in the general sense of the term - "Absurd as being pointless; senseless; without ultimate meaning."
Yes - I do see objective meaning in life, although that wasn't the point of my article. I am a Christian Theist, so I believe that a spaceless-timeless-immaterial, and personal Being called God exists, which gives meaning and purpose to all things. Evidence for His existence can be found everywhere - from an innate knowledge of right and wrong (The Conscience), to sub-atomic particles, DNA, the laws of physics, biology, etc..etc...
[2.] I meant "meaning" in the general sense of the term - but to be more precise let's call it Ultimate meaning. Atheism can give no Ultimate meaning to anything. All of human life, consciousness, and thought (including emotions such as love, etc...), are nothing but the random collocations of atoms and molecules in the mind (just chemical reactions). Your thoughts about anything are nothing more than "fizzing bubbles in a Coke can" - no Ultimate meaning or significance.
[3.] Here's how your'e getting it wrong. If atheism is objectively true, then why are you even wasting your time reading this blog ?? Much less posting your thoughts about it? I mean... seriously.
If I were an atheist, and I truly did NOT believe that God existed - I would not give Theists, or blogs like this, one millisecond of my time. Why would you waste your precious time reading stupid blogs like this, with morons like myself who believe in God? This life is ALL YOU HAVE. This planet is an enormous and amazing place - full of marvelous wonders. I would suggest you start experiencing all that you can, and traveling and sucking the marrow out of life. At the end of the day, and the end of your life - that's it - lights out -forever. Everything you've ever experienced or done is gone for eternity - including this conversation. So why bother? Why does it ultimately matter?
[4.] Yes. It's a historical fact that Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and Stalin were all atheists who were just being consistent with their atheism and extinguishing human life that got in the way of their political ambitions. If humans are mere animals (although of a higher order), then why were these regimes wrong in killing millions? It was just survival of the fittest. Please tell me (According to an atheistic/naturalistic view of morality) WHY were they were wrong?
[5.] No Camus didn't have it wrong. Neither did Nietzsche, Sartre or Simon de Beauvoir. That was the point of my article. They were atheists who actually had it right according to atheism. They were honest with the IMPLICATIONS of their atheistic worldview. Yes - most atheists today DO have it wrong.
To be frank with you, I think that many atheists today are cowards. They want to have their atheistic cake and eat it too. In their metaphysics they want atheism (no-God), but in morality, they like a little theistic icing on the side. But an "Ought" can't be derived from an "Is." All I am asking for is honesty. IF someone is an atheist - a materialistic (matter-is-all-there-is) atheists - then just be honest with the implications of what it is that you believe. Any activity is permissible - there are no ultimate rules - & no ultimate accountability. In the end we will all be dead and the universe will eventually wear out and die too.
Aside from what I wrote above, thank you for taking the time to read the article :)
>> [1]. I actually didn't give a precise definition of the word "Absurd," but I meant it in the general sense of the term - "Absurd as being pointless; senseless; without ultimate meaning."
ReplyDeleteSo you’re simply saying that there is no eternal or objective meaning to life. Of course that’s true, but who would imagine anything else? If there is an objective meaning to life, demonstrate that.
>> Evidence for His existence can be found everywhere - from an innate knowledge of right and wrong (The Conscience), to sub-atomic particles, DNA, the laws of physics, biology, etc..etc...
All you’re doing is saying that, with your God glasses on, you can see God everywhere. Uh, OK. So can the Muslim or Hindu or Scientologist when he does the equivalent. This is no argument.
BTW, I blog at patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined. I’ve written over 1000 posts and have responded to much of the typical apologetic canon.
Wow! Looks like you have a real vendetta against Christianity (or some grotesque understanding of it). Hmmm....
DeleteI am disappointed Bob. I thought you were going to be different.
Your massive blog against God and Christianity just reinforces the point of my article. You are like most atheists who think that what they are doing actually matters. All I am asking for is honesty - and your'e not being honest with what your atheism actually entails.
Let me help you. If you are right about there being no God and Christianity is not true, then go fly a kite or something, because your blog doesn't matter one iota. Your'e just preaching to the atheist choir. But maybe that's it - maybe that's the how you console yourself in this empty wasteland of the indifferent universe - by writing long tirades against Christianity and telling yourself that what you are doing actually matters.
It doesn't. In 10,000 years from now you, your children, America, and very likely life on earth won't exist. Your blog, books and your efforts to rid the world of God and Christianity will have amounted to nothing.
I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just trying to help you to see the implications of your atheistic view of reality, since you seem to have a problem admitting it.
I have a suggestion for you. Read some books on Zen Buddhism and let fools be fools. Live and let live. Quit acting like what you do matters. Because it doesn't.
PS - I took a look at your books, and Bob Price gives you an endorsement?? Bob Price is no scholar, and couldn't tell the difference between metaphysics and Metamucil.
>> Wow! Looks like you have a real vendetta against Christianity
DeleteWhat I’m guilty of is writing quickly and frankly. Perhaps I should’ve gone slower and more politely? That’s a fair criticism, but I don’t have the time.
>> You are like most atheists who think that what they are doing actually matters.
Christianity is a problem, and I’m writing about that. I think that matters.
>> If you are right about there being no God and Christianity is not true, then go fly a kite or something, because your blog doesn't matter one iota.
Huh? I’m trying to educate and change minds. Sounds important to me. What’s your point—that it’s *not* important to me?
>> maybe that's the how you console yourself in this empty wasteland of the indifferent universe
You need to get out more. Atheists don’t think like this. Only Christians trying to act like atheists do.
>> In 10,000 years from now you, your children, America, and very likely life on earth won't exist. Your blog, books and your efforts to rid the world of God and Christianity will have amounted to nothing.
And . . . ? I find meaning in the short life I have here on earth.
What’s the problem here—that you don’t believe me? That you do it differently? That you know that however I do it is wrong?
You need to actually make an argument instead of just saying, “As an atheist, you should do X.”
>> I'm just trying to help you to see the implications of your atheistic view of reality, since you seem to have a problem admitting it.
How lucky for me that you deign to show me what my opinions really entail. And *I* am the one with the vendetta!
But to your point: I’m waiting for you to show me what atheism means.
>> Bob Price is no scholar
Bob Price has two more doctorates (relevant ones) than I do. I think he has something to offer.
(part 2)
ReplyDelete>> Atheism can give no Ultimate meaning to anything.
But Christianity can?? Demonstrate that.
I see zero evidence of ultimate meaning that humans can reliably access. But why even go there? Ordinary meaning works just fine, thanks.
>> [3.] Here's how your'e getting it wrong. If atheism is objectively true, then why are you even wasting your time reading this blog ?? Much less posting your thoughts about it? I mean... seriously.
No idea what you’re trying to say here.
>> If I were an atheist, and I truly did NOT believe that God existed - I would not give Theists, or blogs like this, one millisecond of my time. Why would you waste your precious time reading stupid blogs like this, with morons like myself who believe in God?
Perhaps you don’t like in the US. Do you seriously not know the effect Christianity is having on society.
>> I would suggest you start experiencing all that you can, and traveling and sucking the marrow out of life.
You think my goal is something else?
>> Why does it ultimately matter?
*Ultimately??* It matters plenty, just not ultimately. What is your obsession with objective/absolute/transcendental purpose? Life just isn’t worth living without it?
>> It's a historical fact that Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and Stalin were all atheists
Uh huh. Maybe they also ate meat. Maybe they were also knitters. Show the cause and effect.
>> who were just being consistent with their atheism and extinguishing human life that got in the way of their political ambitions.
You really shouldn’t comment on atheism if you don’t know what it is.
Define atheism for us.
>> If humans are mere animals (although of a higher order), then why were these regimes wrong in killing millions?
So no one can say “that’s wrong” without objective grounding? Show us how that works. Declare that something is objectively wrong and demonstrate that this is objectively true, not just your opinion.
>> [3.] Here's how your'e getting it wrong. If atheism is objectively true, then why are you even wasting your time reading this blog ?? Much less posting your thoughts about it? I mean... seriously.
DeleteNo idea what you’re trying to say here.
Ummm..... I think you do know exactly what I am saying. You're just evading the issue.
GalileoUnchained, I think I understand what he's getting at. Ted seems to be attempting a modus tollens construction: Given "P implies Q" and also given "Not Q", we can logically deduce that "Not P" must follow. Ted's argument would go as follows:
DeleteP --> Q: IF you are an atheist, THEN you must not care about anything. At all. Not even a little bit.
Not Q: BUT we observe that you are spending time and effort writing about this stuff, clearly indicating that you DO care to some extent.
Therefore Not P: So you must not actually be an atheist.
Now, (assuming I remember the terminology correctly) this argument is "valid" in that it's semantically correct and the conclusion DOES necessarily follow from the premises, IF the premises are true. It isn't "sound", however, as the first premise is obviously false. Functioning empathy circuits in the human brain force us (well, those of us who aren't high-functioning sociopaths) to care about the suffering of our fellow humans, regardless of how many nihilists we read.
You're taking a generous approach. Mine was more an impatient approach.
DeleteI wouldn't be surprised if he is saying that; I just wanted to have him make clear what he's trying to say to avoid my spending effort on an argument he's not trying to make.
But assuming you're right, the mind goggles at that conclusion, that there aren't objective things so therefore atheists have nothing to live or think for. Or something.
By simply observing atheists and seeing that he's wrong, you'd think that he'd reject the idea. (But of course you'd be wrong!)
Oh, this blog post is full of sloppy thinking, logic errors, and bad philosophy from beginning to end, but I was trying to take the high road and carefully address specific points rather than just flinging insults.
DeleteHowever, when dealing with a piece that starts with "my religion is objectively the only one that's EVEN WORTH THINKING ABOUT!" and ends with "your position can't be true because you'd be really sad if it were," it's hard not to fall into snark and attitude.
"By simply observing atheists and seeing that he's wrong, you'd think that he'd reject the idea. (But of course you'd be wrong!)"
Christians are notorious for NOT observing things. An uncharitable person might suspect it's because somewhere deep inside they understand how few of their beliefs are compatible with observed reality.
Great points. Do you blog? Here's mine, BTW.
Deletehttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/
I don't blog at this time, but now I'm wondering if I should start.
Delete(Part 3)
ReplyDelete>> It was just survival of the fittest.
Aaaaand you don’t know what this means either. This doesn’t refer to violence.
>> Please tell me (According to an atheistic/naturalistic view of morality) WHY were they were wrong?
Morality comes from our evolutionary programming + social norms. When I say something is wrong, that’s just me saying it. My platform is just my opinion (if I were commander in chief of all armed forces, my platform would be much more impressive).
You seem to imagine that there’s something bigger, grander. Demonstrate that.
>> They were honest with the IMPLICATIONS of their atheistic worldview. Yes - most atheists today DO have it wrong.
Expand on this. What am I supposed to do as an atheist that I’m doing wrong now? I live a contented life . . . but I guess that doesn’t make sense? Here again, I suspect that you don’t know what “atheist” means.
>> In their metaphysics they want atheism (no-God), but in morality, they like a little theistic icing on the side.
They don’t *want* anything. There is no good reason to believe in unicorns, so I don’t believe in them. How about you?
Ditto God.
No thanks, I have no use for theistic morality. (You have read the crazy stuff Yahweh does in the OT, right?)
>> But an "Ought" can't be derived from an "Is."
My evolutionary programming says that hurting someone for fun *is* wrong; therefore, I *ought* not do that. QED.
You really need to get out and read more atheist content.
>> IF someone is an atheist - a materialistic (matter-is-all-there-is) atheists - then just be honest with the implications of what it is that you believe.
Tell me what I believe. I’m pretty sure you have it wrong.
>> Any activity is permissible
Y’know, the last time I murdered someone, I showed my atheist card to the cop. Didn’t work, darn it. So, no, atheists answer to friends, family, society, and the law just like Christians.
Yes. I am fully aware of how survival of the fittest works. I have a degree in anthropology. It certainly CAN refer to violence, but it is not limited to that.
DeleteHmmm... morality comes from evolutionary programming?!? Huh? How exactly does THAT work?
In 1930's Germany "Society" deemed Jews as sub-human, and in the Nineteenth Century American South, Slavery was an institution. Before that it existed in every single culture in history since Mesopotamia. Society doesn't and can't provide an objective grounding for morality. Period.
You must appeal to something that is outside society in order to say that it is right or wrong for all people, at all times, in every culture.
>> Yes. I am fully aware of how survival of the fittest works.
DeleteGreat. Then let’s go back to your original comment. You said, “If humans are mere animals (although of a higher order), then why were these regimes wrong in killing millions? It was *just* survival of the fittest.” What does this mean? I can only make sense of it if the phrase means "survival of the most violent."
>> Hmmm... morality comes from evolutionary programming?!? Huh? How exactly does THAT work?
You’re the one with the degree in anthropology. I really have to explain it to you?
>> Society doesn't and can't provide an objective grounding for morality.
Finally—a point of agreement. I see no evidence of objective morality.
But you do? Show me.
>> You must appeal to something that is outside society in order to say that it is right or wrong for all people, at all times, in every culture.
Whew! Good thing I never do that.
But now you’ve intrigued me. You can? Demonstrate that.
"Hmmm... morality comes from evolutionary programming?!? Huh? How exactly does THAT work? "
DeleteOh, that's quite simple. In fact, it's simple enough that an uncharitable reader might think that if you don't already know, then you must not be looking for answers very hard. Of course, being the generous soul that I am, I'm going to assume instead that you simply haven't been considering such issues for very long.
In short, it goes like this: most of the basic behaviors that we call "morality" coincide closely with what game theory tells us are *optimal* strategies for individuals repeatedly interacting with each other. For animals that live solitary lives, this is of no consequence. However, for *social* animals, such as humanity's recent ancestors, an instinctive bias toward moral/optimal behaviors would grant a survival advantage to a group that happened to have it.
That is, given two groups of early hominids, the group that just happened to have a natural inclination to "moral" behavior would have a slight survival advantage over the other. This would lead to the genes that nudged them in that direction becoming more widespread compared to those of the "less moral" cousins. Over time, the hominids would develop a stronger sense of morals because stronger morals make their populations stronger--that is, *more fit*.
We can see confirmation of this idea today, when we look at other animals. Primates and other social animals have instinctive and innate senses of morality that closely align with ours, and the more intelligent and social the animals are, the more developed and human-like their morality is.
Morality is neither arbitrary nor supernatural; it's the result of millions of years of evolution teaching us that being good to your neighbors boosts the chances of passing on your genes.
Nicely stated, Eric.
DeleteAnother way of seeing this is that we don’t have a sense of morality and then are shocked that humans have some of those traits; our sense of morality and our moral behavior come from the same source. It’s hardly surprising that we find “moral” things that humans tend to do.
Thanks, GalileoUnchained. You've got an excellent point, too. I can't believe I never noticed the tautological aspects of human morality until now. That really highlights the folly of the morality argument: some humans note that humans approve of the behaviors that humans approve of, and then have the sheer hubris to state that this set of behaviors SURELY MUST come from the divine itself.
DeleteThank you gentlemen for your thoughts, feedback and analysis. I apologize for just now getting back to this. I've been crazy busy with work and other responsibilities lately. I am in the process of writing a follow up article which will hopefully clarify some of my thoughts in Honest Atheism. There are several ideas that were not very well expressed, or explained, so I will be making some clarifications, etc... If you still vehemently disagree with me, that's totally cool, but I do think that there are a couple of key ideas that I would like to clarify. Stay tuned.
DeletePS - Eric, you are fairly close to my position. Hopefully the follow up article will make things a bit more clear.
I'm looking forward to seeing your next installment. Also, I applaud your willingness to engage with "the other side." There are a lot of Christian bloggers who would have deleted critical comments like ours.
DeleteYes, agreed.
DeleteHi there,
ReplyDeleteWrote a two-part reply on my blog. Part 1 is at https://freethoughtblogs.com/geekyhumanist/2018/03/18/an-honest-atheists-reply-to-ted-wright/, and Part 2 is the next post on.
Thanks Sara. I will definitely check out your blog and offer some thoughts & feedback.
Delete"Sproul taught that when all of the various worldviews are boiled down to their basic components, there are only two in the end for us to choose from - two views of reality in which all people must put their ultimate hope and trust: full orbed Classical Christian Theism or Atheistic-Nihilism. I fully agree with this assessment."
ReplyDeleteWell, thanks for telling us so frankly that you're an idiot.
Definition of "Ad Hominem": Directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Logic 101.
DeleteI might or might not have been that rude about it, but I have to agree with Mr. Gotts that this is NOT a position that inspires confidence in your intellectual rigor and willingness to judge ideas fairly.
Delete«Sproul taught that when all of the various worldviews are boiled down to their basic components, there are only two in the end for us to choose from - two views of reality in which all people must put their ultimate hope and trust: full orbed Classical Christian Theism or Atheistic-Nihilism. I fully agree with this assessment. Like Sproul, I am also fully aware how how this understanding appears to commit either/or fallacy in logic. I don't think it does. »
ReplyDelete===
It cannot possibly be the case that a false dichotomy is a true dichotomy. Claiming that you don't think that a false dichotomy is a false dichotomy means that you either don't understand what a false dichotomy is, or why it is false -- which does indeed imply something negative about your intelligence -- or you are actually aware that the dichotomy is false but deny it for whatever reason(s), which implies something negative about your honesty, in which case your have no basis to imply that there is some problem with the honesty of atheists.
Consider an analogy: You claim that there are only two places on Earth, the lowest point of the Marianas Trench, and your own house. Such a claim implies that you on the one hand know enough about geography to know that there is such a place as the Marianas Trench, and you are presumably aware enough of other houses, at least in your neighborhood, yet on the other hand, you seem to deny that the other houses in your neighborhood are real, and that all locations other than the lowest point of the Marianas Trench are real.
To strengthen the analogy, you clearly seem aware enough of philosphy and logic to be aware of the landscape of logical possibilities besides the two you list above, yet you seem to reject them for reasons as nonsensical as those that you might have for rejecting other locations besides your own house and the lowest point of the Marianas Trench as existing.
You have no basis in logic for rejecting the following possibilities:
1) That the Old Testament is true, but the New Testament is false; that is, that Judaism is correct but Christianity is not
2) That there is a God that is the basis of some more-or-less universal morality, but which has nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the God proclaimed in either the Old or New Testament.
3) That there is a God and an afterlife, but that God does not have any strong connection to morality other than its personal whims, nor any connection to the God of the Old or New Testament
4) That there is indeed an afterlife, but one which has nothing to do with any kind of God (from the film Coco). The system works on the memory of the living: those of the dead who are remembered continue to exist in the Land of the Dead; those who are forgotten die for a final time.
That's just a few additional possibilities relating to religion off the top of my head, and leaves off all of the religions of the world besides Judaism and Christianity, all of which are additional possibilities. Indeed, it's reasonable to posit that the many doctrinal variations within Christianity also count as possibilities in the logical landscape. You, for example, might imagine that it isn't relevant to your salvation whether or not you believe that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, but it is logically possible that God exists and has a different opinion on the matter.
And of course, all of the above leaves off various atheistic philosophical positions. If God doesn't exist, atheists can still come to other reasonable positions besides nihilism, and indeed have done so. Your pretense that non-nihilistic atheism is a problem is as absurd as pretending that people who live in their own houses, away from your house, are somehow taking something from your house -- even if their houses were built before yours.
Oh, and a minor nit: You spelled the name Simone de Beauvoir incorrectly in every single instance of the name in the text of the post, leaving off the final "e" in her first name.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog post. I needed to hear this.
ReplyDeleteThank you Kate! God bless!
Delete