AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 What Atheists Can't Answer By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; Page A17 British author G.K. Chesterton argued that every act of blasphemy is a kind of tribute to God, because it is based on belief. "If anyone doubts this," he wrote, "let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor." By the evidence of the New York Times bestseller list, God has recently been bathed in such tributes. An irreverent trinity -- Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins -- has sold a lot of books accusing theism of fostering hatred, repressing sexuality and mutilating children (Hitchens doesn't approve of male circumcision). Every miracle is a fraud. Every mystic is a madman. And this atheism is presented as a war of liberation against centuries of spiritual tyranny. Proving God's existence in 750 words or fewer would daunt even Thomas Aquinas. And I suspect that a certain kind of skeptic would remain skeptical even after a squadron of angels landed on his front lawn. So I merely want to pose a question: If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality? If God were dethroned as the arbiter of moral truth, it would not, of course, mean that everyone joins the Crips or reports to the Playboy mansion. On evidence found in every culture, human beings can be good without God. And Hitchens is himself part of the proof. I know him to be intellectually courageous and unfailingly kind, when not ruthlessly flaying opponents for taking minor exception to his arguments. There is something innate about morality that is distinct from theological conviction. This instinct may result from evolutionary biology, early childhood socialization or the chemistry of the brain, but human nature is somehow constructed for sympathy and cooperative purpose. But there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits. So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains. Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains." Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests -- a fear of bad consequences -- will constrain our selfishness. But this is particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not. The death of God has greater consequences than expanded golf time on Sunday mornings. And it is not simply religious fundamentalists who have recognized it. America's Founders embraced public neutrality on matters of religion, but they were not indifferent to the existence of religious faith. George Washington warned against the "supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." The Founders generally believed that the virtues necessary for self-government -- self-sacrifice, honesty, public spirit -- were strengthened by religious beliefs and institutions. None of this amounts to proof of God's existence. But it clarifies a point of agreement -- which reveals an even deeper division. Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold. This form of "liberation" is like liberating a plant from the soil or a whale from the ocean. In this kind of freedom, something dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 great read, thanks for posting that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Interesting, but the logical inference that people should believe in God so that we have the ability to determine if things are righ and wrong, isn't going to more many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I thought about posting that this morning There are many questions atheists can't answer, but the big one is in how you determine that doing right is right. What causes us to know that right is right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 Interesting, but the logical inference that people should believe in God so that we have the ability to determine if things are righ and wrong, isn't going to more many people. But the article is not about proving the existence of God but instead challenging the merits of atheism. And I don't think that the author was intending for people to go "oh, yeah, I guess I'll be a Christian then" but instead for them to wonder about where the ability to determine right and wrong actually come from, which is what atheism can't answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I thought about posting that this morningThere are many questions atheists can't answer, but the big one is in how you determine that doing right is right. What causes us to know that right is right? "None of this amounts to proof of God's existence. But it clarifies a point of agreement -- which reveals an even deeper division. Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold." That is Dawkins arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 But the article is not about proving the existence of God but instead challenging the merits of atheism. And I don't think that the author was intending for people to go "oh, yeah, I guess I'll be a Christian then" but instead for them to wonder about where the ability to determine right and wrong actually come from, which is what atheism can't answer. I'm sorry, but that's not what he is saying. Read the part I just gave SHF. Dawkins in his books deals w/ that extensively. His most valid point is: "they (atheist) just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not." I added the paranthesis. If ethics and morals are the result of evolution (which is Dawkins view), then there is no reason to bind a person to those moral and ethics that does not feel bound to them. Evolution after all is about change. If morals and ethics are the result of evolution it naturally flows then that morals and ethics should change and on an individual basis as new individuals bring about evolutionary change (I won't get into a rant here about how humans are no longer subject to natural selection and are therefore not evolving in the sense that it is normally used so for the sake of this disucssion evolution is any change in DNA that causes a change in the organism, positive or negative). ***EDIT*** I will say there is an emotional plea also, which can be viewed in the part that I gave SHF. Many people would love to believe that after death they are going to a happy place. Dawkins view is you are dead and buried in the ground in a cold box. Clearly, on emotional level the other view is better than Dawkins' view, but that doesn't mean that Dawkins doesn't have an answer for how we came upon ethics, morals, and a belief in God in the absence of a real God, and the author clearly recongizes that. It just means that his answer isn't appealing to humans emotions, which the author also clearly recognizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 not quite sure i entirely understand the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 There are many questions atheists can't answer, but the big one is in how you determine that doing right is right. What causes us to know that right is right? I disagree completely with the premise of the article. I don't see the argument that theistic or atheistic views have a monopoly on morality. Both have a lot to contribute to an understanding of the human condition. Indeed, many religions through the ages have demonstrated quite conflicting views on morality. The thread here about the Pope's recent statement about the 'trueness' of the Catholic Church highlight that the Christian faith struggles mightily with the idea of harmony and inclusion for members of other denominations. Similarly many Protestant and Muslim leaders are reluctant to engage in interrfaith dialog. Exclusion rather than inclusion seems to be the point of view for many decent, earnest, religious people. Atheism too can have a view on morality based on empathy for your fellow man and a recognition that all of us are part of an interdependent society. The Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' does not require belief in a supreme being. How you make your moral choices is not important, but the fact that you make them at all is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 How you make your moral choices is not important, but the fact that you make them at all is. Its now how you make moral choices or that you do, its why do you make moral choices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Its now how you make moral choices or that you do, its why do you make moral choices? social evolution, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Its now how you make moral choices or that you do, its why do you make moral choices? Dawkins has an answer for this. Read some of his books. He believes that evolution has the ability to imprint on the species a sense of morality. To a certain extent, this can be verified by looking at animials. There are many cases where males "fight" in order to establish dominance. In some cases, the "fights" though are not real in the sense there is little effort to truly hurt or kill the opponent. Enough has to be done to demonstrate dominance, but no more, and in most cases, no more is done. You could view this "mercy" as these animials having a sense of morality. The author clearly refers to this idea in his piece, in the section I quoted to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Agnosticism is highly undervalued and underappreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Its now how you make moral choices or that you do, its why do you make moral choices? I answered this in my post. Most people, whether theist or atheist, make moral choices because they believe it to be the right thing to do out of empathy for their fellow man and a belief in the desireability of a smoothly functioning interdependent society. Or the Golden Rule if you prefer. Decent people know that adultery and theft are wrong, and not because of what any religious text says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Its now how you make moral choices or that you do, its why do you make moral choices? Nurture. We're taught as children to respect others and make moral choices. Society punishes us (either through the negative opinions of our friends and family or through incarceration) if we do not make certain moral choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 But the article is not about proving the existence of God but instead challenging the merits of atheism. And I don't think that the author was intending for people to go "oh, yeah, I guess I'll be a Christian then" but instead for them to wonder about where the ability to determine right and wrong actually come from, which is what atheism can't answer. I do agree with the article to certain extents. Personally, I believe saying for sure that there is or isn't a God are equally unsupportable positions. I've never had a problem with the idea of a higher power, in fact I'd like to believe there is one though what form is beyond me, but I think suggesting that we need the strictly human organizations of religion is false. The one thing that jumped out to me in this article is that, no matter the religion, people have been able to get this same sense of duty to do right by their higher power throughout the known history of religion. I think it has a lot more to do with an intrinsic sense of responsibility to something......wether that be a God (or Gods), humanity, or something else than with a particular religion or religious institution. Touching on what and where that intrinsic responsibility comes from and why some people are able to disregard it (I do think it's naturally present in all of us) is really a matter of conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 That article is stupid. You dont need God to know right from wrong. And in no way does belief in God prevent wrongdoing. Also, that first sentence is retarded. Of course you cant blasphem without involving God. The freaking definition of the word has "God" in it. The word was invented by the church. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy This paragraph particularly made me laugh: Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests -- a fear of bad consequences -- will constrain our selfishness. But this is particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not. "Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others." :laugh: Yeah, like the the Church. Pass the collection plate, or you are going to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests -- a fear of bad consequences -- will constrain our selfishness. But this is particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. Yeah, like televangelists. By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them? The 'moral basis' is the consent of the society they live in. Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not. I'd argue about what he mans by 'objective', but the courts (usually) function well enough. Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains." It has been my observation that people will obey their 'instincts' in any case then post-rationalize their behavior. And if you think that human instincts are conflicted, then so are the commands of most gods I have studied. But there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits. I wouldn't take that as a given. Humanaity existed for millenia before religion came to the scene, and managed not to destroy itself. If studies of modern hunter-gatherer species are correct, then those societies without organized religion aren't any worse off or better in terms of social behavior than those with it. I would also add that 'cruelty' is a rather subjective term whose meaning is going to vary from culture to culture. I would also add that primate behavior varies widely. Some of them are even more peaceful then humans(I'm thinking of mountain gorillas here), and they have never heard of God. Others are little more aggressive (like chimpanzees) and will engage in extreme violence for what on the surface appears to be no reason. So in summary, religion doesn't present a solution for the problems he is addressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Its now how you make moral choices or that you do, its why do you make moral choices? People that claim religion are no more moral than those who dont. Probably less so since they can justify any action with religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 I disagree completely with the premise of the article.I don't see the argument that theistic or atheistic views have a monopoly on morality. Both have a lot to contribute to an understanding of the human condition. The problem is that atheism cannot contribute to the discussion on morality, because in atheism morality is completely subjective, and is actually more closely akin to a flaw in the evolutionary development of people, because morality holds us back from doing those things that would benefit us a individuals. Indeed, many religions through the ages have demonstrated quite conflicting views on morality. The thread here about the Pope's recent statement about the 'trueness' of the Catholic Church highlight that the Christian faith struggles mightily with the idea of harmony and inclusion for members of other denominations. Similarly many Protestant and Muslim leaders are reluctant to engage in interrfaith dialog. Exclusion rather than inclusion seems to be the point of view for many decent, earnest, religious people. Big difference in a theological interpretation of the church and a God given morality. too can have a view on morality based on empathy for your fellow man and a recognition that all of us are part of an interdependent society. The problem is as the article states such an evolutionary developement is acutally a failing, not a strength which is supposedly what evolution produces. The Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' does not require belief in a supreme being.How you make your moral choices is not important, but the fact that you make them at all is. The you're right the fact that you make moral choices is important and that is the very thing that atheism cannot answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 People that claim religion are no more moral than those who dont. Probably less so since they cant justify their actions with religion. :bsflag: that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 That article is stupid. You dont need God to know right from wrong. And in no way does belief in God prevent wrongdoing.Also, that first sentence is retarded. Of course you cant blasphem without involving God. The freaking definition of the word has "God" in it. The word was invented by the church. "Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others." :laugh: Yeah, like the the Church. Pass the collection plate, or you are going to hell. Yeah, I would definitely say that assuming that the ability to know right and wrong can only come from God is just as big a leap of faith as saying there is or isn't a God. And you're also right, belief in God is no preventor of wrongdoing, nor can a lack of belief in God be correlated with wrongdoing. It's certainly an interesting question to entertain. Obviously, there's some amount of both "good" and "evil" in all of us and honestly, at different times for the sake of survival, BOTH are probably necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 :bsflag: that is all. :laugh: Pretty weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 The problem is that atheism cannot contribute to the discussion on morality, because in atheism morality is completely subjective, and is actually more closely akin to a flaw in the evolutionary development of people, because morality holds us back from doing those things that would benefit us a individuals. This is John Nash's contribution. Sometimes what is best for the individual is what is best for the society and not what would appear to be best for the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Guys, keep in mind, this is the same guy (Gerson) who thinks Second Life is an example of a real-world libertarian paradise :doh: Idiot he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.