Learn how to defend your faith against any sorts of attacks against Christianity, the Bible, and God. At the Apologetics blog, you will gain confidence in God's Word.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
What will happen to our culture if Atheism takes root?
The problem with this argument starts from the beginning: The idea that atheism is inherently immoral. This is wrong, as any philosopher worth his salt will tell you.
Dr. Sproul's suggestion that humanism borrows from Christianity the value of human life not only presupposes that but also assumes that Christianity didn't take that from somewhere else. Much of what we take for granted in Western culture (whether you know it or not) originated from Greek philosophy. No religion is an island; we all grow and learn from others around us.
Singer's assessment that without God there are no absolutes is correct. However, he's very wrong when he takes this to mean that atheists have no moral standard. Not believing in absolutes is very different from having moral standards.
Citation of the Holocaust is always a terrible example, and I suggest any Christian apologists stay away from that territory. The population of Germany was quite Christian (both Protestant and Catholic), and yet they went along with the persecution and extermination of Jews, Gypsies, gays, and others. There are a number of good books out that display the blatant antisemitism that arose from Christian roots, not atheistic ones. Christianity has moved on today, but the guilt of "The Jews killed Jesus" still carries weight in many Christian communities.
Murray's perverse notion that atheists are moral parasites living on society's Christian foundation is completely ridiculous if one knows the history of the Enlightenment movement in Europe which served as inspiration to many of our founding fathers. Of course, everyone appeals to the founding fathers so I'm not going to argue that one ([cough cough] Treaty of Tripoli [cough cough])
As I watch, again a speaker strikes up the idea that without moral absolutes, anything goes. That's what scares me the most about people like this, because if they didn't have their religious guidelines I worry where they would be morally. Thank God that most of the people who can't seem to maintain a non-theistic moral structure have decided to cling to one they deem constructed by God. Its unfortunate, however, that their moral absolutism prevents them from accepting modern changes in society as they cling to a created idea that they've absolutized.
Zacharias' excuse that religious violence is illogical (whereas atheistic violence is logical) is completely absurd. Not only does it stem from the incorrect notion that atheism is immoral (or amoral) but denies the true religious motivation at the heart of religious conflict. He's trying to brush aside religious violence (or rather Christian violence) because its inconvenient to his argument.
Lowell's quote is basically "love it or leave it," a ridiculous notion. It also gives far too much credit to the idea that Christianity is the foundation for peace and stability.
I'm glad these people have found comfort in holding to a religious belief. However, I don't appreciate their portrayal of atheism. If they were to sit down and actually talk with an atheist, or read a book on a non-theistic moral philosophy, they might have a better understanding.
Also, its interesting that the video quotes Dawkins in saying that individual atheists have done evil but not in the name of atheism without actually refuting his quote! Whoops!
@Brad Hey how's it goin? Thanks for sharing your insight.
"The idea that atheism is inherently immoral. This is wrong, as any philosopher worth his salt will tell you."
Agreed (at least to some extent). If that were the case I'd seriously wonder about the people who subscribe to it.
"Dr. Sproul's suggestion that humanism borrows from Christianity the value of human life not only presupposes that but also assumes that Christianity didn't take that from somewhere else."
True. Christians could have got it from somewhere else or came up with similar ideas independently. This doesn't necessarily change the fact that atheists borrowed from Christian ideologies. Not saying they did either but this statement does nothing to discredit the idea.
"but the guilt of "The Jews killed Jesus" still carries weight in many Christian communities."
Sad but true. I never understood why that was the case. As far as I understand it, the main difference between Jews and Christians is that we believe the Messiah the Jews were talking about has already come. And since we're all sinners, we were just as much a reason for Christ's death as they were.
"Murray's perverse notion that atheists are moral parasites living on society's Christian foundation is completely ridiculous"
Might be. He still has a good point in noting that atheists believe that life and everything else was an accident with no purpose or destiny and ultimately inconsequential but let's celebrate and value it anyway. On a side note,it'd be interesting to watch how atheists would behave growing up in a non Christian influenced society. (I can't really call USA a Christian society with all the crap we call entertainment among other things)
"As I watch, again a speaker strikes up the idea that without moral absolutes, anything goes."
Why wouldn't that be the case? Without any absolutes, everyone would be free to do their own thing and who would have any right to judge them either way? Everyone would be free to develop their own set of morals that best suits their world view. And with over 6 billion people, there will be some variations. Some people may even think it's OK to rape little kids. Although others might disagree with that, what authority would they have that the rapist would have to submit to? You might say the individual but again his authority is only limited to himself. Besides, some people have a twisted sense of morality. Do you watch the news at all? You might say the government but then again governments have made it legal to consider Black people 3/5 of a person, slavery, lynchings, apartheid, Kristallnacht, Killing Fields- you get the idea. Without an absolute morality and some sort of authority behind it, it, this sounds like the early stages of anarchy.
"Zacharias' excuse that religious violence is illogical (whereas atheistic violence is logical) is completely absurd."
Why? Only thing that he means is that although Christians commit violence (won't speak for other religions some of them may advocate violence), it goes against what they're supposed to be following. When atheist commit violence especially on a genocidal level, they have no standard to compare them against outside of themselves and maybe the government they're under- unless atheists control the government in power.
"If they were to ... read a book on a non-theistic moral philosophy, they might have a better understanding."
Would you be able to recommend a couple good ones? I'd like to pick them up. I like to read up on and study other world views even if I don't co-sign them.
"Also, its interesting that the video quotes Dawkins in saying that individual atheists have done evil but not in the name of atheism without actually refuting his quote! Whoops!"
Guess I'll have a go at it then. People acting as individuals have a varied set of motives. What about groups of atheists acting on behalf of atheism such as Stalin or Pol Pot who killed just about everyone who disagreed with them?
Another concern I had, although I touched on it earlier but I'd like to ask directly, is where do atheists get their morals as well as their authority behind those morals from? If there's no universal set, then everyone is free to make up their own set of morals and assuming all human beings are created with equal autonomy (after all, the next guy is just as much a cosmic accident as the first) no one really has any right to impose their morals on another. And unless all 6 billion plus people on the planet agree (good luck with that) what's to stop the planet from plummeting into anarchy? Worst case scenario: Someone molests a 6 year old boy but he believes it's morally OK. The father comes back kills the molester and his whole family including the dog the hamster and any small children because according to his morals, it's OK.
Maybe it could work out but again, if you watch the news, you'll understand my skepticism.
"To say one set of morals is better than another is to compare both of them to a third standard of morals and determine which comes closer."- C.S. Lewis
Note: All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will not be approved. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will not be approved.
The problem with this argument starts from the beginning: The idea that atheism is inherently immoral. This is wrong, as any philosopher worth his salt will tell you.
ReplyDeleteDr. Sproul's suggestion that humanism borrows from Christianity the value of human life not only presupposes that but also assumes that Christianity didn't take that from somewhere else. Much of what we take for granted in Western culture (whether you know it or not) originated from Greek philosophy. No religion is an island; we all grow and learn from others around us.
Singer's assessment that without God there are no absolutes is correct. However, he's very wrong when he takes this to mean that atheists have no moral standard. Not believing in absolutes is very different from having moral standards.
Citation of the Holocaust is always a terrible example, and I suggest any Christian apologists stay away from that territory. The population of Germany was quite Christian (both Protestant and Catholic), and yet they went along with the persecution and extermination of Jews, Gypsies, gays, and others. There are a number of good books out that display the blatant antisemitism that arose from Christian roots, not atheistic ones. Christianity has moved on today, but the guilt of "The Jews killed Jesus" still carries weight in many Christian communities.
Murray's perverse notion that atheists are moral parasites living on society's Christian foundation is completely ridiculous if one knows the history of the Enlightenment movement in Europe which served as inspiration to many of our founding fathers. Of course, everyone appeals to the founding fathers so I'm not going to argue that one ([cough cough] Treaty of Tripoli [cough cough])
As I watch, again a speaker strikes up the idea that without moral absolutes, anything goes. That's what scares me the most about people like this, because if they didn't have their religious guidelines I worry where they would be morally. Thank God that most of the people who can't seem to maintain a non-theistic moral structure have decided to cling to one they deem constructed by God. Its unfortunate, however, that their moral absolutism prevents them from accepting modern changes in society as they cling to a created idea that they've absolutized.
Zacharias' excuse that religious violence is illogical (whereas atheistic violence is logical) is completely absurd. Not only does it stem from the incorrect notion that atheism is immoral (or amoral) but denies the true religious motivation at the heart of religious conflict. He's trying to brush aside religious violence (or rather Christian violence) because its inconvenient to his argument.
Lowell's quote is basically "love it or leave it," a ridiculous notion. It also gives far too much credit to the idea that Christianity is the foundation for peace and stability.
I'm glad these people have found comfort in holding to a religious belief. However, I don't appreciate their portrayal of atheism. If they were to sit down and actually talk with an atheist, or read a book on a non-theistic moral philosophy, they might have a better understanding.
Also, its interesting that the video quotes Dawkins in saying that individual atheists have done evil but not in the name of atheism without actually refuting his quote! Whoops!
@Brad
ReplyDeleteHey how's it goin? Thanks for sharing your insight.
"The idea that atheism is inherently immoral. This is wrong, as any philosopher worth his salt will tell you."
Agreed (at least to some extent). If that were the case I'd seriously wonder about the people who subscribe to it.
"Dr. Sproul's suggestion that humanism borrows from Christianity the value of human life not only presupposes that but also assumes that Christianity didn't take that from somewhere else."
True. Christians could have got it from somewhere else or came up with similar ideas independently. This doesn't necessarily change the fact that atheists borrowed from Christian ideologies. Not saying they did either but this statement does nothing to discredit the idea.
"but the guilt of "The Jews killed Jesus" still carries weight in many Christian communities."
Sad but true. I never understood why that was the case. As far as I understand it, the main difference between Jews and Christians is that we believe the Messiah the Jews were talking about has already come. And since we're all sinners, we were just as much a reason for Christ's death as they were.
"Murray's perverse notion that atheists are moral parasites living on society's Christian foundation is completely ridiculous"
Might be. He still has a good point in noting that atheists believe that life and everything else was an accident with no purpose or destiny and ultimately inconsequential but let's celebrate and value it anyway. On a side note,it'd be interesting to watch how atheists would behave growing up in a non Christian influenced society. (I can't really call USA a Christian society with all the crap we call entertainment among other things)
"As I watch, again a speaker strikes up the idea that without moral absolutes, anything goes."
Why wouldn't that be the case? Without any absolutes, everyone would be free to do their own thing and who would have any right to judge them either way? Everyone would be free to develop their own set of morals that best suits their world view. And with over 6 billion people, there will be some variations. Some people may even think it's OK to rape little kids. Although others might disagree with that, what authority would they have that the rapist would have to submit to? You might say the individual but again his authority is only limited to himself. Besides, some people have a twisted sense of morality. Do you watch the news at all? You might say the government but then again governments have made it legal to consider Black people 3/5 of a person, slavery, lynchings, apartheid, Kristallnacht, Killing Fields- you get the idea. Without an absolute morality and some sort of authority behind it, it, this sounds like the early stages of anarchy.
"Zacharias' excuse that religious violence is illogical (whereas atheistic violence is logical) is completely absurd."
ReplyDeleteWhy? Only thing that he means is that although Christians commit violence (won't speak for other religions some of them may advocate violence), it goes against what they're supposed to be following. When atheist commit violence especially on a genocidal level, they have no standard to compare them against outside of themselves and maybe the government they're under- unless atheists control the government in power.
"If they were to ... read a book on a non-theistic moral philosophy, they might have a better understanding."
Would you be able to recommend a couple good ones? I'd like to pick them up. I like to read up on and study other world views even if I don't co-sign them.
"Also, its interesting that the video quotes Dawkins in saying that individual atheists have done evil but not in the name of atheism without actually refuting his quote! Whoops!"
Guess I'll have a go at it then. People acting as individuals have a varied set of motives. What about groups of atheists acting on behalf of atheism such as Stalin or Pol Pot who killed just about everyone who disagreed with them?
Another concern I had, although I touched on it earlier but I'd like to ask directly, is where do atheists get their morals as well as their authority behind those morals from? If there's no universal set, then everyone is free to make up their own set of morals and assuming all human beings are created with equal autonomy (after all, the next guy is just as much a cosmic accident as the first) no one really has any right to impose their morals on another. And unless all 6 billion plus people on the planet agree (good luck with that) what's to stop the planet from plummeting into anarchy? Worst case scenario: Someone molests a 6 year old boy but he believes it's morally OK. The father comes back kills the molester and his whole family including the dog the hamster and any small children because according to his morals, it's OK.
Maybe it could work out but again, if you watch the news, you'll understand my skepticism.
"To say one set of morals is better than another is to compare both of them to a third standard of morals and determine which comes closer."- C.S. Lewis