Posted on 01/03/2008 8:33:44 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
One of the biggest obstacles facing what’s called the “New Atheism” is the issue of morality. Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have to convince people that morals and values are possible in a society that does not believe in God.
It’s important to understand what is not in doubt: whether an individual atheist or agnostic can be a “good” person. Of course they can, just as a professing Christian can do bad things.
The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society. Can it motivate and inspire people to be virtuous and generous?
Not surprisingly, Richard Dawkins offers a “yes”—grounded in Darwinism. According to him, natural selection has produced a moral sense that is shared by all people. While our genes may be, in his words “selfish,” there are times when cooperation with others is the selfish gene’s best interest. Thus, according to him, natural selection has produced what we call altruism.
Except, of course, that it is not altruism at all: It is, at most, enlightened self-interest. It might explain why “survival of the fittest” is not an endless war of all against all, but it offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives or even their lifestyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not even know.
Darwinist accounts of human morality bear such little resemblance to the way real people live their lives that the late philosopher David Stove, an atheist himself, called them a “slander against human beings.”
Being unable to account for human altruism is not enough for Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation. In a recent debate with Rick Warren, he complained about Christians “contaminating” their altruistic deeds in places like Africa with “religious ideas” like “the divinity of Jesus.” Instead of rejoicing at the alleviation of suffering, he frets over someone hearing the Gospel.
In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why my colleagues and I spend our lives ministering in prisons.
In contrast, the record of avowedly atheistic regimes is, shall we say, less than inspiring. Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.
One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.
Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.
Nietzsche would laugh—and wonder why they don’t make atheists like they used to.
Last night I got a survey call about blood donation as apart of a study being run by Northern Illinois University. At one point during the survey, when he was asking about how much I cared that the blood I donated went to someone I knew, or someone here in town, it dawned on me that not only could I not care less who it went to, but that my blod might save some guy's life and his first stop after the hospital would be the nudie bar or his dope dealer's house. I donate five or six times a year, so theoretically I could be saving the lives of six saints or six enthusiastic sinners, even criminals. Since some blood is made into three different products, it could be 18 sinners or 18 saints.
But I realized I don't care. I do it because I have O+ blood and people in trouble need my blood. What gene is there that makes me do that? There's no reinforcement, there's no certainty that my cooperation will make society stronger and make it more likely that I (along with the recipient) will be more likely to pass on my awesome genetic material. I do it because I follow a Lord who is the ultimate in altruism, but without doubt there are many atheists and agnostics who donate blood. Can there really be a gene sequence that makes them do that? How would such a gene work, since it would basically require that certain very abstract thought patterns trigger a very concrete and specific behavior? To me, that takes more faith to believe than believing in God.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
There is no morality without God.
“It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.”
End of discussion. Count me as one who does not believe that a true atheist exists, based on personal experience.
Atheists are those that cannot let go of something personal in order to accept what the universe screams at them daily.
God is Dead, Nietzsche 1882.
Nietzsche is Dead, God 1900.
Nietzsche is Dead and in Hell, God 1900.
“Nietzsche tells us that out of chaos comes order” - Howard Johnson
“Blow it out your ass Howard” - Emil Johnson
“...what the universe screams at them daily.”
Albert Einstein:
“There are two ways to live your life - one is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle.”
It is stunningly obvious which is the true reality.
Untrue. There one can define all sorts of moral systems based on ... well, whatever principles one decides are important. "Might makes right" is one, for example.
The distinction is, rather, the what basis by which can one say "that is wrong," or "this is the right thing to do," and have it mean only one thing.
At root, the questions boil down to these two:
1) Do you propose that true "morality" is based on a set of fixed and immutable principles?2) If so, on what basis do those principles come into being?
It's at that point where one gets into the necessity of God, if one is to assume that moral principles are absolute, rather than relative.
Nice Blazing Saddles pick up.
So we do good for others based on Darwin?
So the USA killing all of these wacked out “religion of peace” terrorist is an act of natural selection?
I guess in this one case I back Darwin.
“I wash born here, an I wash raished here, and dad gum it, I am gonna die here, an no sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter.” Gabby Johnson
It takes an understanding of how human society has developed over hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years.
Even studies of many animal species have demonstrated how many share resources and food, take care of each other and the sick, show compassion, etc.
We had a very sick cat and while he was sick, another cat looked after him and even licked his butt clean - something even the most avid theist wouldn't do for his fellow man.. ;)
It could be that species which have learned to take care of each other have a better chance of surviving and reproducing.
I’m glad the children who read this board got to see that fine example of frontier gibberish.
“I heard you was hung.”
The crux and crucible.
It doesn’t bother you that Colson is a convicted felon?
ping
Einstein didn't believe in God
Let’s see, that was years ago and he’s had his rights restored. He has received numerous awards for the change he made during/after prison and the good he has done for others. Nope, couldn’t care less. I don’t agree with everything he says, but his past means little.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.