As a Christian anarcho-capitalist libertarian, I've recently found myself being drawn into the debate surrounding the ideas of the so-called "New Atheists"; Harris, Dawkins and the like. There are many excellent bloggers, foremost among them Vox Day, who have been challenging the often faulty logic of these second-rate philosophers, and I felt it was time for me to add my two cents. This won't be the sole focus of the blog, but it is a point of passion from which to start this adventure.
That said, here's a post of Pharyngula's that particularly stood out at me. Sorry if I'm late in commenting on this one folks.
-----------------------------------------
You would think Yale would attract a smarter class of stude…oh, wait. I forgot what famous Yalies have risen to power in this country. OK, maybe it's not surprising that a Yale freshman would raise the tired canard of the "amoral atheist".
Recent years have seen an influx of anti-religious publications in the Western world, as well as a growing audience for such publications. From Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" to Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great," anti-theistic works have poured into bookstores as atheists in the United States and elsewhere have taken on a more strident tone in public discourse. Unfortunately, their approach has been one characterized more by noisy rhetoric than reasoned arguments, and they have particularly failed in their attempt to present a coherent system of morality that in no way rests on a belief in the supernatural.
Of course, Christians and other theists have raised the objection that naturalistic materialism — the notion that only the physical world exists — can provide no foundation for morality. That's not to say that naturalists cannot behave morally, but merely that they can have no real and consistent reason for behaving morally. As this has been a long-standing and widespread objection to naturalism, it would seem only reasonable to expect atheists to devote careful attention to the question of morality.
This notion that morality is a reason to believe is a common thread to many religious apologetics, as is its complement, that atheism doesn't provide a moral rationale. In part, I agree: the simple statement that the world exists does not state how we should act within it, and the fact that the universe is godless does not dictate standards of human behavior. But then, neither would the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god.
---------------------------You'll have to read further to get the full context, but here's my response (It will also help explain the title of the blog.)
Okay, that's all well and good, so long as you live in a situation where you're rewarded for your traditionally moral behavior.
Now let's assume that an opportunity presents itself whereby you and your family can greatly benefit, (let's say you'll score a few million dollars, but you can make it whatever motivation would be particularly appealing to you) simply by killing an innocent human being. Let's also assume that you can be completely assured that you will never have to answer for this murder for the rest of your life.
Why wouldn't you do it?
Give me one good reason not to murder an innocent person in this situation.
The only thing close to a good reason I could think of is that it would make you feel bad emotionally and/or physically. If you have another or better reason, please tell me.
But now, haven't you been given those very feelings by natural selection as a means to usher you towards those behaviors that would be most beneficial to the survival of you and your offspring?
So wouldn't it be logical to ignore your queasiness in this particualr situation and commit cold blooded murder to better insure the future transmission of your genes? It's simple cost benefit analysis: The potential benefits outweigh the potential costs (feeling unpleasant emotions versus assurance of continued survival).
So again, why not?
As far as you're entire take on the article in question, you've only addressed the minor argument, completely ignoring the question of why you should be moral in situations where it doesn't benefit you.
You're absolutely right, starting at morality and arguing backwards to god is a stretch. So why spend so much time rebutting the weakest point of the article and completely ignoring it's major point. The argument you should be addressing is the logical reasons to hold to traditional morals in situations where they are not beneficial to continued survival.
And as for the remark that a god (Let's assume a creator god for the moment) does not provide a basis for morality is just ludicrous. He made the universe from his own material, therefore he owns it, therefore he gets to dictate the rules. I'm sure you've heard the term "My house, my rules." Well, guess what? God's universe, God's rules. Makes sense to me.
By the way, this also happens to be the reason why I wouldn't kill you for several million dollars if the perfect opportunity presented itself. I happen to believe I am going to have to answer for things like that one day.
So if you can forgive my playfulness for a moment, might I say that you should still consider thanking Jesus (or other's belief in him) for saving you, not from damnation, but from people like me.
I can assure you that if I had no belief in a God whom I'll have to answer to for my actions, well, I'd have a lot of dead bodies in my wake.
Have atheists ever stopped to consider that it's the very religion they attack that is the only thing keeping a lot of other people from killing them and taking their stuff? Not everyone is as naturally moral as you guys, o enlightened ones. I guess some of us needed someone to write it down for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment