ProTheism

Introduction

Atheists differ in many ways. To attempt to say that atheists believe “X” is most likely painting with a wide brush. We often try to put the atheist into a conforming box that may not comport with their specific presuppositions. Moreover, atheist may argue differently on subjects like morality, logic and other things that ground their unbelief. However, being an ‘atheist’ means a certain thing—namely that they deny the existence of God or gods.

Often, when I engage an atheist concerning God’s existence, I am often told that the person making the claim bares the burden of proof. However, what the atheist fails to realize is that we are both making a claim on the subject. The Christian claim is (1) God exists and the Atheist claim is (2) God does not exist; thus, both the atheist and theist hold a position on the proposition of God’s existence. Therefore, each side of the debate shoulders a burden for their own position and does not exclusively rest on one side.

There is a primary tactic that the atheist may try to avert their side of the burden. Primarily, they redefine the term “atheism” to “no belief” in God. In this post, I will demonstrate the classical definition of “Atheism” and how the evasion to shoulder their burden is fallacious.

‘Atheism’ as the “absence of belief” in God

Many atheists are stating that they “lack a belief in God” or have an “absence of belief in God” or they state that they have “no belief in God”, or they state that they are ‘without a belief in God”. In fact, it’s becoming more popular the more it’s tossed out. No thanks to Gordon Stein, he states the position as follows (emphasis mine):

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would strongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God. [Gordon Stein (Ed.), "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism," p. 3. Prometheus, 1980.]

Definition Problems

The “lack of belief” definition of atheism is a problematic definition for several reasons. You will not find this definition of atheism (at least now) in any reputable dictionary. The lack of belief definition is far too broad in scope. A “lack of belief” (arguably) can be attributed to agnostics, babies, aardvarks, goldfish (name your animal/pet) and perhaps even rocks. Come to think of it, my old shoe on the patio has a “lack of belief” in God. Besides, none of those would identify as an ‘atheist’ [—though my shoe is not talking to me right now (I’ll update)]. You see, the “lack of belief[ism]” brush is far too wide.

Even if the “lack of belief” definition was adopted, who would know what someone meant when they said they were an atheist? One wouldn’t be able to tell if they never thought of the proposition “God does [or does not] exist” or if they were undecided on God’s existence, or if they thought God’s existence cannot be known, or affirmed that God does not exists. Hence, the “lack of belief” definition is entirely inadequate in identifying what the hell an ‘atheist’ is.

Grammatical Efficacy

Another deficiency with a “lack of belief in God” is the grammatical structure. What you find is that atheists who abide in “lack of belief” are simply *shifting the location of the negative* in this sentence. So, the atheist is basically stating that they *don’t believe* in the existence of God—thus, they still have a *negative* within the statement. (See Kenneth G. Wilson’s demonstration of the grammatical shift of the negative in The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. Under the explanation of “raising.”

One can demonstrate that the change in definition still does succeed in averting a *position.* For example, take a look at the following examples:

(i) “I don’t believe my wife is at work” is equivalent to “I believe my wife is not at work.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about my wife being at work.

(ii) “I don’t believe they made reservations for dinner” is equivalent to “I believe they did not make reservations for dinner.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about their reservations for dinner.

(iii) “I don’t believe he ran the entire way home from practice” is equivalent to “I believe he did not run the entire way home from practice.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about him running home from practice

(iv) “I don’t believe ‘atheist’ means ‘lack of belief’” is equivalent to “I believe ‘atheist does not mean lack of belief.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about atheists ‘lack of belief’

(v) “I don’t believe in the existence of God” is equivalent to “I believe that God does not exist.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about the existence of God.

As demonstrated, ‘Atheists’ are not approaching this issue with a blank slate, they come to the table *with a belief* about the existence of God—not the lack of one. Stating that they “lack belief in God” will not avert their own standpoint on God’s existence. They have a belief about the proposition of God’s existence; if they had “no belief” they wouldn’t self identify as “atheists.”

What’s interesting, is that you will even find the lack of belief definition and etymology on wikipedia and answers.com (but if answers.com [which usually just uploads wiki] says it--it *must* be true, right?—wrong and wrong again). Wikipedia and answers.com are good resources, but they both have their limitations and set backs. Before I examine the etymology of ‘Atheism,’ lets take a look at how *reputable* dictionaries and encyclopedias define the term.

Classical ‘Atheism’

Despite the popularity of a “lack of belief” definition for atheism, there is a more formidably understood and classic definition of Atheism—one that is held by the majority of the population. Atheism is the: “belief that there is no God.” You will find this definition in the following dictionaries and encyclopedias:

• Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology
• Etymological Dictionary of English Language
• The Academic American Encyclopedia
• Random House Encyclopedia
• Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
• Oxford Companion to Philosophy
• The World Book Encyclopedia
• Encyclopedia Americana
• The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Encyclopedia of Religion
• The Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia.

To illustrate some online examples as well:

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, states that Atheism: “means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”

• The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary states that an Atheist is: “someone who believes that God or gods do not exist.” And an Agnostic is: “someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists”

• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states that an Atheist is: “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.” And Atheism is: “Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods…”

• The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition states that Atheism is: “denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell and Madalyn Murry O’Hair.”

• Merriam-Webster Online states that an Atheist is: “one who believes that there is no deity.” And Atheism is: “a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity.” And Disbelief as: “the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”

• 1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary states an Atheist is: “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being” And Atheism as: “The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being”

• Dictionary.com states that Atheism is: 1“Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.” And an Atheist is: “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.” And Disbelief as: “Refusal or reluctance to believe.”

As it can be seen, the classic understanding of “Atheism” and Atheist” is a denial that God exists—Not a “lack of belief” in God.

Etymology

Atheists like Stein and much of the online community also like to argue the etymology of “atheism”. What’s stated, roughly, is that ‘a’ means ‘without’. By attaching ‘a’ to ‘theism’; one is ‘without-theism.’ After arguing this position, then, an ‘atheist’ is just someone who is ‘with the absence of theism.’ Another prominent atheist, George Smith makes the same argument in Atheism: The Case Against God, when he writes, ". . . the term 'a-theism' literally means 'without theism,' or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief . . . If we use the phrase 'belief-in-god' as a substitute for theism; we see that its negation is 'no-belief-in-god.'"

From the Online Etymology Dictionary, ‘a’ is: “prefix meaning "not," from Gk. a-, an- "not," from PIE base *ne "not" (see un-).” In addition, ‘no-gods,’ or ‘godless’ is the more logical outworking of the etymology of atheist/atheism. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

Atheist Theodore Drange, in his article, Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism, describes the problems of the alleged “without” etymology of ‘atheism.’

Sometimes the use of the term "atheism" to mean "lack of theistic belief" is supported by an appeal to etymology. For example, Martin, in [Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.], says the following:

"In Greek a' means without' or not' and theos' means god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.[4]"

This argument is rather unsatisfactory for at least two reasons. First, it is not completely clear that the correct translation of the Greek prefix "a" is "without." It might also mean "no," in which case "a-the-ism" could be translated as "no-god-ism," or "the view that there is no god." Note that there is no "ism" in Greek. Second, even if the etymology of the word "atheism" did indicate that it once meant "without belief in God," that is still not a good guide to current usage. It is quite common for words to acquire new meanings over time. It seems far more important what people mean by a word today than what it once meant long ago.

Another argument sometimes put forward is that we should ascertain what the word "atheist" means by taking a poll among atheists. But that is an unclear suggestion. How are we to decide who is an atheist (and thus to be polled) prior to ascertaining what the word "atheist" means? Let us assume that the poll is to be taken among all those native speakers of English who are not theists. It is still not clear what the result of such a poll would be. I have never seen any statistical result presented on the matter. My conclusion here is that no good case has ever been made for using the word "atheist" in the sense of "one who is without belief in God."

So again, we see that ‘atheism’ is not the absence of theism, but the denial of it.

Equivocating Definitions

In order to avert the burden of proof, some atheists have changed the definition of atheisms to a ‘lack of belief.” This attempts to put the atheist in a non-affirming position and shifts the burden *to the person making the claim.* However, as we have seen, both the atheist and theist are bringing claims to the table and each must defend those claims.

The problem with the “lack of belief” position is that it conceals the atheist’s true position. While asserting that they “lack belief”, they are truthfully holding to the classical position in their philosophy (see above). In their writings, they are demonstrating their rejection of Gods existence (sometimes dogmatically); however, when challenging their position, out comes their ‘sudden’ lack of belief on the issue. In one side of the mouth their parading their disbelief, and on the other side of their mouth their denying *any* belief. For people who are in “absence of belief in God”, they sure do have plenty of ‘opinions’ about the matter. In other words, their equivocating the two definitions of atheism to suit their purpose of evading the burden of proof. This method of argumentation is dishonest and should be pointed out.

The Logical problem of ‘Atheism”

Now that we have cut through the language game, we should note that the classical definition of atheism can put the atheist in a predicament. Some might assert that to be an atheist, you must be in the position to prove a universal negative. Now, I happen to think there is a way out for the atheist. But for dogmatic atheists who pontificate the non-existence of God (there out there), there is a logical dilemma. If all possibilities for the existence of God can be exhaustively enumerated; you can prove the universal; however, you can’t do this when dealing with the proposition of Gods existence.

The atheist then, is philosophically naïve to assume that they can disprove Gods existence. However, the atheist does not have to assert a universal negative to maintain their atheism. An atheist can maintain that while God's existence *cannot be logically or empirically disproven*, it is nevertheless *unproven.* With this qualification, the atheist is not committing a logical fallacy and still maintains their atheism. However, as we can see, the atheist as well as the theist both has a position on the proposition of Gods existence—and therefore, both shoulder the burden of proof for their position , since the Law of the excluded middle does not apply in this situation.

Conclusion

It’s common today to see atheists avert their own burden of proof. One tactic the atheist has done to is to re-define atheism from the “belief that there is no God” to the “lack of belief in God.” However, the re-definition of atheism is fallacious and still fails on its face to avert their burden of proof.

If the atheist says that God’s existence cannot be proven, he’s assuming that the Christian has no proof or that all his proof is wrong, which is the very thing the atheist would need to prove (and thus he’s begging the question). In addition, for the Christian theist, to deny the idea of God is to deny the actual existence of God no matter what language game you want to play. It isn’t good enough for the atheist to say that they ‘lack belief’ of God *therefore* they are denying nothing about "Gods" actual existence. By self definition (no matter how you slice it) atheists must examine all of reality (within their epistemological realm) to evaluate the concept of God. In summary, neither the atheist nor the Christian is “neutral” in their approach to the question of God’s existence.

In summary, neither the atheist nor the Christian is “neutral” in their approach to the question of God’s existence.

The question of God’s existence is not acontextual. Atheism and theism arise from alternative systems of belief. Each system of beliefs includes presuppositions about reality, knowledge, and how we live our lives. Thus, each system of belief must be argued for—no language game will change that.

Some atheists do acknowledge that both the atheist and theist bare a burden of proof when arguing the existence of God. Jeffery Jay Lowder comments in the article Is Atheism Presumptuous? A Reply to Paul Copan (2000):

In a recent article, Paul Copan challenges Flew's presumption of atheism, calling it "presumptuousness." According to Copan, "the atheist also shares the burden of proof" because "atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists")."[3] I agree with Copan that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."

Both atheist and theist have knowledge claims that must be argued for. Evading the burden of proof demonstrates the weakness of ones own position. It’s high time that atheists who ‘lack belief’ own up on their burden as well as the theist.

Labels: Apologetics, Atheism, Belief, Epistemology, Proof

Apparently, there is a double standard when it comes to justifying ones own assumptions on presuppositional matters. The Christian must give an account of all affirmations of the Christian worldview, or such assertions are deemed unfounded and are rejected as unsupported beliefs or non-rational lines of reasoning. Conversely, some atheists have excluded themselves from the burden they impose. This special pleading effect is evident in the area of foundational beliefs—such as morality, logic, reason and so on. However, when those foundational beliefs are represented as deductive premises in an argument, they should not be surprised when they are challenged on it. In fact, their case hinges on many unspoken assumptions for which they often offer no supporting argument.

I have found that some unbelievers may even become infuriated when one points out that secularism has no principled basis for morality. This is often pointed out when a non-believer, such as a secularist, uses morality (e.g. problems of ‘evil’ and ‘suffering’ etc…) to argue against Christianity. Nevertheless, rather than supporting their premise of “evil”; they assume the challenge as a type of personal affront. Responses vary from statements such as “I m a moral person” and “I don’t need a book or a ‘god’ to be moral.” Thus, rather than address the question, they regress on to an erroneous trail of personal and observational testimony. However, when I challenge an unbeliever about their moral premises, I am not judging their character, or calling into question their moral behavior; rather, I am questioning the referent they use that governs their moral system. In other words, I am questioning their own yardstick they use to determine what is-or-is-not moral.

For instance, when an atheist uses the existence of evil as an argument against Christianity, the Christian has every right to challenge the premise of their argument. Recently, I have heard an atheist state that the challenge of moral substantiation is a dishonest tactic to trap the atheist, because the theist already deduces that the atheist cannot provide a basis for morality; thus, Christianity is true by default. Yet, this is untrue—at least in my own challenges. Though I do think that secularism cannot provide a sufficient basis to support their premises and always will fall short of grounding morality in something other than oneself; the position leads to moral relativism or nihilism. However, I don’t think that qualifies the secular position as *necessarily* false. So the intent of the challenge is not to entrap per se, but to entice one to examine and substantiate their position. Thus, such arguments should be challenged until demonstrated otherwise, or is recognized to be flawed.

Though I think their argument to be flawed, I do not think it to be meaningless. Interestingly, the meaning within their argument is not recognized by the very person making the argument. In fact, the very argument counters their polemic against Christianity. From the words of C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. ... Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

So the moral argument against God and Christianity has meaning, but not with an atheistic worldview (at least not one than I have seen). The atheist must borrow the Christian worldview of morality in order to argue against the Christian worldview. Ironic.

Case In Point

The Reluctant Thinker (A.K.A. the Reluctant Atheist) has become aggravated and eager to avoid grappling with the theistic challenge of a moral framework. I want to look at his post on the subject of morality to demonstrate my point. Before I start though, the Reluctant Atheist is not a reluctant thinker because he does not think, or that he is unintelligent; he is a reluctant thinker because he is reluctant to think about where his position leads and doesn’t lead. I am sure he is an intelligent man, and many intelligent people hold the same position of morality he does—so this not to an affront on him, but an affront on his position and response to the moral challenge. Nevertheless, there are some very intelligent unbelievers who go to desperate lengths to deny the obvious or silence the opposition with backbiting refusal to engage in order to justify their unbelief.

In the beginning of his post, he states:

[S]omewhere, somewhen, there’s some unwritten rule that we atheists are required to explain how it is that we’re moral creatures, without the benefit of having transcendent guidance.

I hate this crap.

I know why this is hated, because every time this challenge is brought up—they cannot substantiate their claims of theodicy. This is basically saying “talk to the hand.” It gets old defending the indefensible I suppose. I have had this discussion with the author before. When pushed against the wall hard enough, he stated, “Truthfully, my position is ad hoc.” Yet, if a position is ad hoc, it loses its deductive power and thus does not provide adequate premises to argue in favor of theodicy.

Secondly, why is it okay for the atheist to avoid justification for their beliefs, while the theist must be substantiate their beliefs?

Continuing…

At some juncture, I just lose interest. Besides which, I think it’s a trap, a pitfall we fall into as a rule. I mean, really, why on earth do I HAVE to explain it? I don’t. I feel that I (and my fellow atheists) best exemplify by example. To wit: the large percentile of crimes committed in this (or for the most part, any other) society is committed by religious folk.

This is a reluctant thinker’s way of plugging his ears to any critique of his position on morality. He says, “why do I HAVE to explain it”; the answer is—you have to explain it when it’s a premises in your argument. If you’re going to go on the offensive, and give Christianity the finger, don’t expect a free pass. Those who state one doesn’t have to answer on this issue are usually indicating that they cannot answer it.

It would be one thing to corner someone to justify morality when they have not given an opinion on the matter; however, the rub comes in when someone uses a moral deduction to argue against Christianity. Thus, one is required (if they want to preserve the argument) to support the premises of the deduction.

Secondly, the author goes to state that “the large percentile of crimes committed in this (or for the most part, any other) society is committed by religious folk.” So what is being said is that atheists have exemplified superior morality than ‘religious folk.’ However, (1) this is an assertion not an argument (2) only gives a descriptive measure of morality (3) begs the question (4) fails to note the center of moral substantiation—that is to substantiate the prescriptive basis of such actions (5) what of the crimes committed by ‘non-religious folks’. The statement means nothing, and solves nothing without giving prescriptive justification for atheists. For if there is no prescriptive justification, then there is no condemnation of not being moral.

Natural Ethics

Continuing, we now explore the paradox of natural ethics:

Thus far, it seems I’m a moral naturalist.

“Moral naturalism is a form of cognitivism derived from applying evolutionary game-theory to ethics. Rather than interpreting morality as the result of negotiations between members of a large group of free moral agents, moral naturalism sees morality as an emergent phenomenon arising as an unintended side-effect of the interaction of those agents in smaller groups. In other words, morality is not to solve a single problem but a number of recurring problems, in the same manner that natural selection adjusts populations of organisms for changing environmental conditions. This puts moral facts in a class with natural facts about the world, which contradicts the assertion of divine command theory that morality is defined by the arbitrary revelation of God.”

I think that covers it very nicely, thanks.

It’s hard to see how giving a definition of moral naturalism provides a substantiation of morality. At best, this is just inches improved over moral relativism as it provided a more cognitive relation to reality than a reconstruction of reality. Ambiguity does not substitute well for rationality. Moral naturalism seems to affirm that moral values are (1) real, (2) an objective property of the natural (or physical) world. Thus (I presume), a moral decision is either “true” or “false”, depending on the facts of the world as it exists. The problem with this view is that the morals are not mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior.

However, moral naturalism is just another way to adopt Christian values without God. With moral naturalism there is a strong emphasis to base morality on ‘facts’. However, moral naturalist still smuggle in a moral premise, namely the principle that it is wrong to do X as a fact without a priori knowledge. To exclusively base morality on descriptive facts is to enter into a never ending circular abyss. To state that X as a fact is wrong and that X is wrong as a fact is a tautology. Having done this, to then say that “pleasure is valuable” would be to affirm a mere vacuous statement, as would “pleasure is good”

Only with moral knowledge already in place does it make sense to say that you can derive a moral conclusion from a set of facts. Hence, you have to have some standard to evaluate the facts themselves. So, moral naturalism does not answer the question of were morals come from in the first place, which is central to supporting their position.

The problem I see with naturalistic principled morality is that it makes morality arbitrary. One wonders, “Why is rape wrong?” The moral naturalist would have to say, “This tendency proved useful in the processes of natural selection.” So, it seems that rape is not *necessarily* morally wrong. I think most people find this entirely odd. Moreover, naturalistic ethics seems to fall prey to a type of genetic fallacy, in that it doesn't give a reason to believe that certain actions or things are right and wrong; rather, it purely tries to elucidate to why we have certain inclinations of morality as we understand it.

Continuing…

I personally believe that morality is an individual choice, and that one’s environment is a huge factor in that choice.

It’s difficult to put your finger on what certain people actually believe, it’s like their trying to derive some theory to explain away their a priori moral knowledge, but end up going all over the map with ‘naturalistic morals’ to ‘personal choices.’ Nevertheless, regarding morality as an individual choice, I presume without any ultimate accountability--that’s true. Considering evolutionary involvement and moral choices, Jeffery has a question for the atheist:

“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’”

~ Jeffrey Dahmer

Continuing…

This isn’t to say I was ‘saintly’: most young boys engage in behavior that would be considered Sociopathic in an adult – it’s a matter of whether it’s a touch, or a wholesale wallowing that makes the distinction. I found the flavor wholly repulsive, and turned my face away from that innate darkness that humans have built into their nature. With no help from religion, I might add.

These statements sound an awful lot like the doctrine of original sin. Yet, while recognizing the “innate darkness” humans have, they venomously deny original sin. Secondly, if humans have “darkness built into their nature”, what makes that darkness wrong? Isn’t that what evolutions has brought? If we have evolved to be natural rapists what does it matter? Moreover, how does one turn their face away from something said to be “innate in humans?”

At least Richard Dawkins is honest about his worldview when he says:

There is at the bottom of it all no good, no evil, no purpose, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

So if were honest about atheism, aren’t human beings just what natural selection made us to be? Aren’t we just a higher form of animal; perhaps we are some form of killer apes manufactured by evolution?

So, in short, I’m a morally upright individual – I don’t steal, I rarely lie, I’m excruciatingly honest (to my own detriment, I might add), I understand what the word no means (I feel that rape – the ultimate conscious violation – is perhaps the most disgusting crime one being can commit on another), children absolutely adore me, domestic pets as a rule gravitate to me, I’m about as friendly as another human being can be in person, and I won’t strike another person without due provocation. I also haven’t seen the inside of a cell in approximately thirty years (one time was enough: in some things, I’m a fast learner).

Another thing we see here is the “I am a good person defense”; as if that answers the question of moral foundations. Due to natural revelation, the Image of God imprinted on people, and common grace by God, unbelievers retain a remnant of common decency. This classic response gets old, because the question is not, in the first instance, whether an unbeliever can exhibit common decency, but whether moral absolutes are consistent with, or inherent in, an atheist worldview. Saying you’re a moral person doesn’t cut the cheese.

In fact, this quote explains my sentiments well:

In America, however, most of our atheists are actually thinly disguised Christians, or sometimes thinly disguised Jews, who want to retain the humanism taught by the Creator, without believing in the Creator. They believe in the image of God, without believing in God. They want the Kingdom of God; --- compassion, justice, peace, love, integrity, honesty, and commitment; without God, the King.
-- Michael Novak

Following to the end of this post, we see that evolution is now the source of morality:

Which begs the question (for the theists): from whence came morality?

So I’ll paraphrase myself (I’m entitled to), and add to an earlier quotation of mine:

‘From the womb of evolution sprang religion. From that womb also came morality.’

Because, let’s face facts, folks: any individual of a species that behaves in a manner contrary to the well being of the herd, is cast out. I won’t trot out any scholarship in this regard: I leave it to my readers to investigate for themselves.

If humans are merely complex material, molecules without purpose, if no one piece of matter is any more valuable than any other piece of matter, if we are self-governing (without God), if the circumstances warrants it, and if we can advance our own selfish interests by doing so, could we not lie, steal, maim, or murder at will? If not, why not?

Labels: Apologetics, Atheism, Atheology, Belief, Christianity, Epistemology, Morality, Nihilism, Skepticism

I recently downloaded G.K. Chesterton’s, Orthodoxy. The second section (II) is amusingly called “The Maniac.” While I was freshly beginning to read it, this piece jumped out at me:

[I]f the great reasoners are often maniacal, it is equally true that maniacs are commonly great reasoners….Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humor or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity in this respect is a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

I can’t help but be of the same opinion with Chesterton. It’s no wonder that some of the most brilliant people are reclusive and can’t tie their shoes. It seems today that reason is put on such a high pedestal (sometimes even to idolatry) that all else is secondary and diminished by it. What Chesterton sees quite clearly is that reason cannot be virtuous in it of itself and those who operate by it and no other become exasperating to communicate with.

As Chesterton stated, “if you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it”; because the madman does not take notice to the complementing features of humor, charity, experience etc…

I have just recently started to read this work, and I can already tell that it is going to be an excellent book. For those who are interested, you can actually download the book for free in pdf format here: G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Labels: Epistemology, Meaning, Philosophy

Labels: Apologetics, Atheology, Christianity, Epistemology, Skepticism

BF:While I generally agree with your post, let me make a few comments. 1) Don’t expect Christians to roll over with their tail between their legs every time their challenged

I’d not expect any such thing from anyone. Sounds like a pre-judgment to me. When does ‘turn the other cheek’ ever apply?

2) Christians are human too, we may have our occasional slips, but so do you and everyone else.

Hey, no argument there.

3) There are occasions where calling reprehensible arguments what they are (insert whatever ‘belittling’ comment here) is necessary insofar as they are justified

Fine, then call the argument that, not the person. What qualifies as ‘reprehensible’, then? Genocide and pedophilia are reprehensible: abortion is not. Hatred is reprehensible. Murder is reprehensible.

4) both atheist and theist would do better if they lighten up and develop thicker skin.

Agreed. However: if you walk past a crazy person once, they make threatening, belittling comments, you never see that derelict again, well, easy enough to shrug it off. But you meet that person every day in some way, and this person does it again, and again, and again, until you dread the next day? This is an illustrative example.

Also note that as you said “Atheists say they constantly are reduced to stereotypes” and provided a supporting quote. Well, theists are constantly reduces to stereo types too:Quote: It's difficult to have a conversation with a theist, when the automatic assumption is that we're all 'tools of Satan', 'losers', the auto-assumption of 'self-worship', the 'lost soul', 'there are no atheists in foxholes', etc, etc, ad nauseum. So you’re making a stereotype ascription to theists as well.

In some ways: it’s also a matter of observation. It’s one of the many items that turned me away from the belief systems of religion altogether. Note that I avoided the blanket statement here: there IS an automatic assumption tacked on, for most. Note that I have two xtian friends, so no, not every xtian does this: but enough to make it a pattern.

I respect the fact that you want to eliminate the ad homs, but let’s not act as if you (or more often other atheistic blogs) have set the standard of the harmonious exchange of ideas when you bash, belittle, disparage, mock, and ridicule what Christians believe and the Bible ad nauseum (note this especially in comment sections, where dialogue occurs).

I’m not acting that way at all. I’m pointing out, that most (no, not all) of your side of the debate behaves quite poorly. YOU folks are the ones claiming higher moral ground: act accordingly.Now why do you think that is? Could it be a knee-jerk response, much like the one white folks encounter, when they seem to look at a black person cross-eyed, and the black person wants to beat the snot out of them? Whenever a minority comes of age, whenever a historically silenced group of folks finally find their voice, there’s going to be acrimony, there will always be anger. Let’s face facts: not until the 20th century, has an atheist even had the ability to speak out, or up. Note the L.A riots (blacks): or the Harvey Milk debacle (gays). Face it: your side has had power for far too long, and has abused it. This is the backlash. This is the aftermath of many decades of bottled resentment. I’m not saying it’s right: but when you fling feces and call foul, you spit on a person and not expect the same treatment in kind, well then, good luck changing human nature.

Don’t get me wrong RA, I’m all for intellectual freedom, and I support your liberty to disagree, reject, and criticize any belief system including Christianity. But if I go through your atheist blog roll and read the posts what will I find? From a Christian perspective, I see Christianity, for lack of better words, shit on. Equally, there are dumb atheists, and there are dumb theists, and there are smart atheists, and there are smart theists, sometimes whichever boat you’re in, you have to call it the way you see it.

See commentary above. Y’all made your bed: don’t complain to me if it’s a tad on the lumpy side.

On a side note, I see that you like to take the ‘moral high ground.’ I was wondering if you have posted on your system of morality, or are planning on doing so.

No, you have it all wrong. Again, your side likes to take the ‘moral high ground’. It’s a stumping point, which irritates me to no end, when few enough actually walk the talk. I’m more than willing to forgive the occasional slip, as we are all human, and prone to error. But your side always seems to do it w/a certain amount of glee. Perhaps as mine does. But we don’t have a book of rules to tell us otherwise: YOU DO. Look up the concept of ‘agape’. No referral to tektonics, please: I find Holding’s ‘extenuating circumstances’ a little on the convenient side. As to morality? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Note that that was espoused by JC, Hillel, and Confucius alike, so no accusations of ‘borrowing’, please. The Golden Rule suits me just fine. Read the post ‘Ahimsa’: I believe that fits it all very well. I don’t need a novel-length explanation of what I do, and why I do it. "Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds otherpeople in contempt."Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not themodesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has thearrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorantassurance. Believing himself to be the slave of God, he imitateshis master, and of all tyrants, the worst is a slave in power."-Ingersoll, Some Reasons Why
11:58 PM, April 05, 2006

"I find the vast (no hyperbole) majority of apologists to be egocentric, sophistic, spiteful malcontents, w/far too much time on their hands and convinced of their moral superiority"

bf said:"Christianity doesn’t teach that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians."Huh?What?Come again?Did I hear your lunacy right?Then why is the god of the bible so adamant that none may be worshipped but he?And why does he, by the proxy of his followers, wage war upon those who feel/think/live differenlty?Yeah, riddle me this...
10:34 AM, April 06, 2006

Now, regarding the “Christian Moral Code”: Christianity doesn’t teach that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians. It does teach, however, that Christians ought to advance moral ethical behavior (this is where we agree). However, the Bible also (since you brought it up) advances the periodic mocking to the opposing view point (1 Kings 18:27), and calls non-Christians foolish (1 Cor. 1:20) and fools (Rom 1:22) and corrupt (Psalm 14:1). The Bible also calls unbelievers wicked. And the passages you posted are misused.

Okay, so Kings, Elijah's mocking the prophets of Baal. Psalm 14:1 (don't even need to look that up) says that only a fool says there's no god.1 Corinthians 1:20 (King James Version)King James Version (KJV)20 - Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?&22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,Sorry, but nowhere in any of those do I see a license for xtians to resort to mockery. I believe the phrase here, is 'cherry-picking'. & if you'd be so kind, show me how the passages I quoted were misused.

It seems that you want the Christians to be the wishy washy doormat that any atheist gets to walk all over because they don’t have a “book of rules” and theists do. While acrimony is justified for the atheist due to centuries of oppression (even when they have never personally experiences this historical oppression-if there was such), and the theist gets to respond with a cheesy smile while everything they believe to be sacred, holy, and personal gets shit on. This is more like the fallacy of self exclusion. How would you like it if someone slandered and spat in your mothers face (or someone close to you)? Well, imagine that feeling. I think that many Christians have done well—some not. I’m not arguing that you are completely unjustified; your frustrations are certainly warranted.

I would not expect any human being to subject themselves to having a welcome mat on their backs, thank you very much. As to being passionate about something sacred - I take your point. Freedom is my sacred cow, and the bill of rights, so understood.

You do however make some pretty strong moral claims:"I find the vast (no hyperbole) majority of apologists to be egocentric, sophistic, spiteful malcontents, w/far too much time on their hands and convinced of their moral superiority"

You realize, of course, that this can also be an honest assessment of the matter? If you read more of my posts, you'll probably find that I'm something of a hard ass. Atheist or theist. I am on record as having gone rounds w/more than 1 atheist. So if I see something wrong, I'm gonna say so. I don't care who you are, what you believe, if I think an opinion's a crock, or I find a commentary that I personally think is reprehensible, you (or the person who said it) is going to hear it. If the Shrub was an atheist, I'd STILL say he's an incompetent boob. Read my post, 'When Atheists attack!'. I'm big on rules. You agree to the rules, you play by them. I agree to them, so do I. If this makes me unpopular w/my fellow atheists, well, I could give a rat's fart in a whirlwind. If no 1 says anything, silence is taken as assent. To paraphrase John Adams, "Facts are those pesky critters that don't go away."

Your “Ahimsa” post blurs some distinctions (well, take into consideration I’m on my first cup of coffee). So maybe you can answer this question so I can better understand where your coming from:
The golden rule is catchy, but, according to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?Contrary to what you may (or may not) think, the golden one liner doesn’t answer the question (or “Ahimsa”).

Don't harm others: what else is there to say? Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others. It IS that simple. Empathy. The 'golden 1 liner'? Is that...perchance mockery I hear? ;) Go ahead & re-read it (after the 3rd or 4th cup). I'm curious as to how I blurred the distinctions.
11:17 AM, April 06, 2006

“Why is the god of the bible so adamant that none may be worshipped but he?”

“And why does he, by the proxy of his followers, wage war upon those who feel/think/live differenlty?”

BF:I never said that the passages were a license for mockery. I pointed out that in contrast, the Bible says that unbelievers are fools, wicked etc… and if the Bible teaches it, we are justified articulate biblical expressions and teachings insofar as it’s used in context of how it was used in the Bible. I’m a little more gracious theist, but read this article and it will give the root of what I’m talking about.

Thanks for the article. It was most amusing. I consider that complete sophistry, BTW. Cherry-picking. That's EXACTLY what that article claimed: license for mockery.

In regards to Ahimsa, I think you failed to address the following: you did not define evil. Is it your opinion? What is the standard to which you measure it? Where does the standard come from? If it’s your own personal convention why should anyone accept your definition? Does your subjective opinion apply to anyone else? Can you force your morality on anyone? Why? Why not? The golden 1 liner is not mockery, it just doesn’t answer the essential questions, and it’s a cop out.

Evil=harm. In word or deed. No, I didn't fail to address it at all. No, the 'golden 1 liner' does answer the question, stop poisoning the well.

I like how you dodged my question:According to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?

Oh, this old dodge. I could see this coming a mile away. Standard talking point. If I say it's wrong because it is, then we have the same old discussion about 'objective morality'. If I say it's because I say so, then it's self-worship.It's wrong because it is. Causing pain is wrong.
10:13 PM, April 06, 2006

I suppose if I accused you of “lunacy” I would be charge with the immoral tendencies to “harangue, harass, belittle, and otherwise behave like children who have been poorly toilet trained.” But I guess “Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others” doesn’t apply if it comes from an atheist.

Listen:A. I didn't call them immoral, I called them hypocritical.B. "As you sow, so shall you reap."Oh, wait: I misused that quote (somehow).Never mind.
10:18 PM, April 06, 2006

And so we come back to this,as always:

"Because according to the Bible, he is the only true God and a jealous one at that. "

But since there's no reason to believe (other than -wanting to-)that the bible is the infallible word of said god...well, we just tumble down into the abyss of circular logic.

Bf.All I asked... hell, all I EVER WILL ask, is that you prove the infallibility of the book you get your morals from.Sorry.. I know that's a tall order.But don't give me your bitchy little, "Well, so are you!",- argument.
11:06 AM, April 07, 2006

It really is very easy.It is incumbent upon those who make extraordinary claims to prove such proclamations.In other words,prove not only that god exists,but that he/she/it conforms to your interpretation of the "rules".If you can manage THAT,THEN I might consider your outpourings as more than mouthiness.
11:11 AM, April 07, 2006

“But don't give me your bitchy little, "Well, so are you!",- argument. If you can manage THAT, THEN I might consider your outpourings as more than mouthiness.”This must be the empathy RA was talking about.
11:55 AM, April 07, 2006

bf.Evidence of the bible's veracity for one.And don't dump a few linksfrom Dembski, Tectonics or, worse,Fall-Down-The-Well.We're not children here.We've been through this before.We'll need actual facts...you know, the kind that allowed man to walk on the moon...not the kind that condemned people for saying the earth had a roundish shape.Another thing would be proving the existence of god...pick a god, any god.In essence, my antagonistic toneaside, why believe when there's absolutely nothing to support it?
2:34 PM, April 07, 2006

Plus:"This must be the empathy RA was talking about."Wow. There's that bitchiness again.You want my empathy?Then don't act like a jilted lover,when all I do is ask obviously needed questions, okay?And remove the stick while you're at it, and have a seat.There's a chair here for youand we do value your input.So quit with the petulant facade,sit down and expound.
2:39 PM, April 07, 2006

You do make comedy easy:

"Even if God appeared before you, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? "

Uh... I suppose that ifhe's all-powerful and omnipotentI'd not have a choice.I'd be convinced by the veryfact that I couldn't choose NOT to.

"Thus, I’ll pass on your request, because it would never meet your satisfaction. "

Translated to human-language:"I have no real argument,so I must run".Bye, buddy.Do drop in again.
4:34 PM, April 07, 2006

BF:This must be the empathy RA was talking about.

Well, at the risk of 'siding' w/HMDK, you HAVE been making the effort to turn the tables on the skeptics in that regard. I've been making the effort to remain civil, but I keep hearing, "What about you?" every time a criticism is voiced.Such as:

But I guess “Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others” doesn’t apply if it comes from an atheist.

Or:

You do however make some pretty strong moral claims:

or:

On a side note, I see that you like to take the ‘moral high ground.’

While normally I consider turnabout fair play, I find the 'Jerry Springer' apologist (no, not you, though you're starting to lean towards it) particularly obnoxious.What I see is an effort to make the other side bend to your rules (a bootless effort: each atheist plays by their own rules, there really IS no set standard). I am all for spirited debate. But unless a set of rules is agreed upon in advance, it's pretty much free-style, isn't it?I feel obliged to point these things out. If I saw a Buddhist who claimed to be a pacifist starting fights all the time, well, you get my drift. I do strive for some kind of standard, though I fumble, as any human does. I find this statement telling:

I am just as much as a loser as anyone else (believer or non-believer).

Perhaps I'm taking this out of context, but this says so much to me.I feel:A. Loser isn't a person, it's a mindsetB. This reeks of original sin& there we have another divide. OS (original sin) is perhaps 1 of the more unbelievable doctrines of xtianity. I find that reprehensible. It stunts the mental potential of every human being that believes it. I find it loathsome: that humanity is some thalidomide baby, purposely stunted by its maker upon existed. What kind, loving being would wish that upon its offspring? & for the sin of the father? I call it cruel: I call it inhumane, I call it many things. & washing 1's sins away in the blood of another, no matter the name? I'm sorry, but that smacks of savagery. In this, I DO take the higher ground. Moral, intellectual, whatever you choose to call it.
As to this:

both atheist and theist would do better if they lighten up and develop thicker skin.

Well, there is a way to do this.Turn the other cheek.Live by your own rules, is my advice. Set an example. & I give you this:"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." (First Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter 13, verses 4-8a)"I do not need to abide by these rules, as I've not agreed to them. It is you & yours that lay claim to the higher ground. Justify & represent: that's all I ask. That, & honesty. Make of that what you will.
5:54 PM, April 07, 2006

BF:If “there really IS no set standard,” then there is no standard to which others must follow their own standard. In other words, there are no rules that one *ought* to follow their own rules.

I did say this (in its entirety):What I see is an effort to make the other side bend to your rules (a bootless effort: each atheist plays by their own rules, there really IS no set standard).Yes, let's do this. The rules are set by 2 items: the individual's upbringing, and the environment set around the individual. I was talking about debate, failed to qualify, & so we'll talk in circles a bit. My standard is...well, I've given it to you. This was formed by a # of negative experiences as a child, which makes 1 either A. Totally numb, orB. Empathic, or C. SociopathicI went w/B.
Now this:

In other words, there are no rules that one *ought* to follow their own rules.

You have consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, in accordance w/the agreement of your specific clique/herd/choose noun of your choice.In order for any individual in a pack environment to exist w/said pack, there is obviously select patterns to maintain. This is observable in humanity, in nature, w/any living organism (sans the loner animal).There are indeed set social mores, that we're obliged to follow. Set at the core of these, is empathy. If an animal sets itself against the pack, more often than not, that animal is outcast, or destroyed. In your pack, the parameters were set 2000 years ago, by an alpha wolf. Apparently, said parameters were almost impossible to follow. Whereas, in my pack, we have set ourselves outside the majority, ergo, in a manner of speaking, there's a certain amount of isolation. Hence the anger, the frustration. So if you're trying to set up some strawman attack (& if I'm off on this, apologies), that's not going to fly. I still have YET to hear about my misuse of scripture quotation. Oh, & this:

Even if God appeared before you, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know?

Perhaps the better question, would be: how would you know yourself? What is your criterion? I'm genuinely curious. Have you had such a thing occur?
11:36 PM, April 07, 2006

You have consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, in accordance w/the agreement of your specific clique/herd/choose noun of your choice.

In order for any individual in a pack environment to exist w/said pack, there is obviously select patterns to maintain. This is observable in humanity, in nature, w/any living organism (sans the loner animal).

There are indeed set social mores, that we're obliged to follow.

Set at the core of these, is empathy.

an animal sets itself against the pack, more often than not, that animal is outcast, or destroyed.

In your pack, the parameters were set 2000 years ago, by an alpha wolf. Apparently, said parameters were almost impossible to follow. Whereas, in my pack, we have set ourselves outside the majority, ergo, in a manner of speaking, there's a certain amount of isolation. Hence the anger, the frustration. So if you're trying to set up some strawman attack (& if I'm off on this, apologies), that's not going to fly.

Perhaps the better question, would be: how would you know yourself? What is your criterion? I'm genuinely curious. Have you had such a thing occur?

BF:

Agreed, but my specific set of parameters qualifies me to its adherence. Someone without any specific set of parameters (Read: rules) has no specific set of parameters (rules) to require those who have chosen to adhere to a certain specific set of parameters to actually adhere to them.

So this is your roundabout way of saying, "You can't criticize me?" Nu-UH. Obviously, I have a set of parameters to follow: otherwise, you'd be reading about me in the newspapers, or seeing me on an episode of 'Cops'.

Hence, if you deny objective standards, you disqualify your own standard of requiring others to hold to their own standard. It’s self refuting.

No way, no dice. Nice try. No such thing as 'objective standards'.

It’s not as if just because one has consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, one *ought* to follow those parameters. What if there was a group who’s specific set of parameters was to murder atheists? Would you require them to follow those parameters? I think not (neither would I, but actually oppose it). It’s not just about having parameters (or rules), we must be able to appeal to a standard to judge whether or not those rules *ought* to be followed.

'Do unto others...', see, it still applies. I'm really making an effort here not to resort to 'appeal to ridicule', or the ad hominem: your 'murdering atheist' analogy almost opens up a whole can of worms.

According to this, only that “pack” that holds to these values can enforce them. If you have two different “packs,” with two different sets of “pack” values, one “pack” cannot force it’s own values on another “pack.” If it can, then were talking about might makes right and whomsoever can overpower, will be in the right.

Which is historically verifiable.

And if the standard of society is racism are we obligated to follow? Was Martin Luther King going against his obligation to follow the ‘social mores’? According to this standard, there can never be moral reform in a society, and people in social mores like Nazi Germany were “obligated to follow.”

Again, sadly, historically verifiable. File under 'moral relativism'. However, social mores change, and they DO evolve. There will always be problems, ironed out in time, but evolution gives us the ability to move forward. It takes one mutation, whether that's in the social meme, or in the act of speciation, to change the flow of life.

Yes, but if your not in the pack, you don’t get to kick out pack members.

I'm not in a position to kick anyone out. Honesty impels me to point it out.

I have no problems when people challenging certain claims—they ought to, but skeptics can always be successful at being a skeptic no matter what is presented before them.

Not a cheap shot, but the same claim can be made for religious folk.

Thus far, your successful adoption of my simile sways me not in the slightest. It's simplistic reductionism. As a pack animal, we as a species have evolved a far more intricate, complex set of interactions that (dare I say it? YES!) transcend the simpler format that you've presented. If we were talking about dogs, all of your examples would be correct. But we are talking about a creature w/approx. a billion (guesstimate) separate mechanisms used to interact w/other creatures of the same species. To pare those down to just 1 core ingredient? I'm going to have to go w/empathy. There may be a couple of more.Ingersoll moment - "'Thou shalt not kill' is as old as time itself, as most men object to being killed."& so, regardless of whatever Gordian knots of logic you use, I will, to borrow a metaphor, cut them w/my blade. I haven't named the bloody thing yet. How goes fatherhood, BTW?
2:41 PM, April 08, 2006

Labels: Apologetics, Atheism, Atheology, Christianity, Epistemology, Knowledge, Morality, Skepticism