In the Name of Knowledge and Wisdom

Front Page Magazine ^ | 11/26/'08 | Jamie Glazov and Jonas E. Alexis

[Zionist Conspirator]

FP: Tell us about some of the vital contradictions you have found in the atheist position.

Alexis: Let us start with Richard Dawkins, because he claims to follow logic and reason. In chapter two of The God Delusion, he writes, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Those are interesting words—coming from the pen of a person who believes that God does not exist, yet who is still marshalling ridiculous arguments against the very same God. However, in his book River out of Eden, which was written years before The God Delusion came out, Dawkins wrote, “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference….DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

So, at bottom, according to Dawkins, there is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. How, then, can Dawkins judge the God of the Old Testament if there is no good and no evil? How can he honestly say that what God was doing was “evil”? By what standard is he judging Him? Moreover, could it be that the God of the Old Testament was just “dancing to His DNA”? And if He was, why would Dawkins lambaste Him?

Dawkins’s fundamental philosophy is telling him that there is no good and evil, yet experientially and intellectually he cannot live with it. There is a vital contradiction here. Moreover, Dawkins constantly invokes words like “unjust,” “racist,” and “evil” in his petty and elementary arguments. He never seems to think that he is implicitly saying that he does indeed believe that there is, at bottom, evil and good. In addition, whenever he invokes those types of words, he is simply referring to a moral law that simply says, “It would be immoral of God to be jealous and proud of it; unjust, unforgiving control-freak…”

Now, we all know that whenever there is a moral law, there must be, by definition, a moral lawgiver. Yet that’s what Dawkins is trying to disprove. He has yet to succeed. Dawkins is not the first one to come up with those child-like arguments. French writers during “The Age of Reason” made several attempts to wipe out the notion of God, all to no avail. These include D’Hobach, La Mettrie, Diderot, Voltaire, etc. Diderot for example declared, “I would sacrifice myself if I can annihilate the notion of God.” All those guys are in their grave, and the notion of God has yet to be wiped out.

[Zionist Conspirator]

This is an excerpt. Click here to read the rest (lots of hyperlinks).

Bottom line: since right and wrong do not exist apart from G-d, it is illogical for atheists to inveigh against the "immorality" of G-d.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Ping for your interest.

[gargoyle]

...In the begining,,, snd then G-d rested, Adds up for me. I’m just waiting for Jesus to come back, and when He gets back, UMUMUM, nuff said fer now...

[Zionist Conspirator]

...In the begining,,, snd then G-d rested, Adds up for me. I’m just waiting for Jesus to come back, and when He gets back, UMUMUM, nuff said fer now...

I'm sure till then (lehavdil) you'll refrain from making any sort of moral or value judgements, since DNA doesn't care how much of your precious liberties Obama takes away from you.

[KDD]

The “theodice problem” as stated by David Hume.

“If the evil in the world is intended by God then he is not good. If it violates his intentions then he is not almighty. God can’t be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since God is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Because, if only God can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that God, and not Satan created the universe?”

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Dawkins may be wrong about God, but this essay is lamer than anything the writers claim comes from Dawkins.

First off Dawkins clearly states that he is talking about "The God of the Old Testament" and not God in general, a God he does not believe in.

So right off the bat the writers of this silly essay claim that Dawkins said something which he did not. This is either stupid or deceitful.

Finally they make the philosophically suspect point that there can be no law without a lawgiver. They may believe this, but lots of philosophers don't.

A case can be made that because we have free will we can determine a set of values and laws that we can all agree to live by, whether or not there is a single lawgiver.

The writers are begging the question.

[Philo-Junius]

Quick answer: God’s ability to thwart evil would obliterate our ability to do good by removing moral agency from our decisions. God could have done this, but chose not to do so in order to allow our choice at the Tree of Knowledge to have consequence.

Our forbearers chose to live in a world in which God permitted evil, and we are the heirs of that decision.

[Zionist Conspirator]

A case can be made that because we have free will we can determine a set of values and laws that we can all agree to live by, whether or not there is a single lawgiver.

Unfortunately, there was never a time when "we all" agreed to any such thing. And even if "we all" did, so what? It's not as if there were any objective metaphysical moral order that would be violated by our going back on our word, is it?

Who says we have free will? Mind is nothing but matter and we dance to our DNA--correct? So again, don't condemn Obama for anything his brain chemistry and DNA compel him to do.

First off Dawkins clearly states that he is talking about "The God of the Old Testament"

You're right--Dawkins is obviously an anti-Semite.

[RussP]

The problem with that argument is that it is based on the premise that this world is all that God will ever create. If this guy had been paying attention in Sunday School, he would know that this world is only temporary, and the next one will be permanent and free of evil and suffering. But to get there you must choose of your own free will to love God and be saved. God does not force us to love him, because forced love cannot be true love.

Check out http://reasons.org

[Zionist Conspirator]

The “theodice problem” as stated by David Hume.

“If the evil in the world is intended by God then he is not good. If it violates his intentions then he is not almighty. God can’t be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since God is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Because, if only God can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that God, and not Satan created the universe?”

G-d is ultimately responsible for evil. After all, He created man with free will and then gave him a set of instructions, which in and of itself makes evil possible. Then you have to recall that nothing G-d created is equal to G-d Himself (after all, the first sin was committed by the "perfect" man).

G-d created the evil inclination and gave it to man. This is inferred by the two yods in the original Hebrew text: Vayiytzer 'et Ha'Adam (the two yods standing for the two yetzarim (inclinations), good and evil. Besides this, G-d created Satan, who is just doing his job (the idea that Satan was originally a "good angel" who "fell" is a chr*stian myth).

Furthermore, the first sin was actually committed before man was ever created, when G-d commanded the earth to bring forth `etz peri `oseh peri ("trees of fruit making fruit") but the earth sinned and brought forth `etz `oseh peri ("trees making fruit") instead. Furthermore, when the sun and moon were first created (according to the midrash) they were the same size but the moon was reduced as a punishment for being envious of the sun (again, this is before man was ever created). And it is not only all mankind, but everything in creation, including plants, animals, and heavenly bodies, that are "judged" on Ro'sh HaShanah. All that is not G-d is judged because by the very nature of things all that is not G-d is imperfect.

But you're forgetting the most important thing of all: in the absence of G-d, objective evil does not and cannot exist. No single human being, no group of human beings, or the human race as a whole, has the competence to declare anything objectively wrong (all "morals" are merely hang-ups). In other words, the problem of evil is not a problem for Monotheists but for atheists, objective evil cannot exist without G-d to define it.

[hellbender]

God did not create evil. He allowed free will, which inevitably allows beings to choose evil. If God micromanaged every being and action, there would be no freedom, and without freedom there is no possibility of love or virtue. Conservatives, of all people, ought to recognize that.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Zero Sum]

Dawkins may be wrong about God, but this essay is lamer than anything the writers claim comes from Dawkins.

It's an interview, not an essay.

First off Dawkins clearly states that he is talking about "The God of the Old Testament" and not God in general, a God he does not believe in.

Right, and Dawkins makes a moral judgement regarding the God of the Old Testament in Whom he does not believe when he says that, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Which is absurd because if, as Dawkins believes, "there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference," then there is nothing evil about "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully," because there is no evil in the first place!

So right off the bat the writers of this silly essay claim that Dawkins said something which he did not. This is either stupid or deceitful.

What did Alexis falsely attribute to Dawkins? Are the quotations incorrect?

Finally they make the philosophically suspect point that there can be no law without a lawgiver. They may believe this, but lots of philosophers don't.

A case can be made that because we have free will we can determine a set of values and laws that we can all agree to live by, whether or not there is a single lawgiver.

Then by all means, make the case. Remember, you said, "a set of values and laws that we can all agree to live by." We know that such universal consensus does not exist. And I'd be thoroughly impressed if you could demonstrate that, given free will, a universal consensus even could exist without a true standard. How would you get everyone to agree?

Now if only we had an actual standard with which we ought to agree... then at least we'd have something to shoot for.

The writers are begging the question.

Of course there are assumptions involved, but that's not question-begging. It is impossible to make a logical argument without axioms. But the only assumptions that Alexis makes are ones that pretty much everyone makes, even if only tacitly. That's the point.

He assumes:

1. There exists a moral law.
2. Moral laws must come from a lawgiver.

Which of course implies the existence of a lawgiver.

Alexis shows how Dawkins tacitly assumes the first postulate, which is fatal to Dawkins' argument because Dawkins explicitly believes that absolute morals do not exist. (This is worse than question-begging on Dawkins' part. Instead of assuming that which he wants to prove, he assumes that which he wants to disprove!)

Regarding the second postulate, your claim of "a set of values and laws that we can all agree to live by" assumes it by making universal consensus (assuming that such a thing does or can exist) the "lawgiver." Now, are those philosophers whom you mentioned above consistent in their explicit rejection of this axiom, or do they make the same tacit assumption? Perhaps they make an idol out of universal consensus.

[gargoyle]

...Many moons ago, A comic friend of mine and I were talking about physics, theory of relativity. At the time, we were in our hazy state period, you can figure that out. He said, “I think that matter is just energy condensed to a slow vibration, light. We are not body, just spirit, and there is no death of spirit. Life is but a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Pause. Here’s Tom with the weather. We gut laughed the rest of the night. I’ve thought about it alot, and, all jokes aside, I don’t really know if I know reality or illusion. Am I crazy? If I say no, I am, if I say yes, I’m probably not. Any way, a great thread...

[KDD]

Now if only we had an actual standard with which we ought to agree... then at least we'd have something to shoot for.

There is one.
Call it the science of ethics.

[KDD]

It may not serve an emotional void but its utility can not be denied.

[Zero Sum]

ZS: Now if only we had an actual standard with which we ought to agree... then at least we'd have something to shoot for.

KDD: There is one.

Absolutely. And Dawkins wouldn't get so tangled up in contradictions if he would only admit it.

Or he could take his rejection of moral absolutes to its logical conclusion... but I doubt that he would want to go down that path. I certainly hope that he wouldn't.

KDD: Call it the science of ethics.

No, I call Him Christ. Our standard is a Person. We ought to be like Him.

Besides, ethics is not a science. The scientific method is useful for answering questions about the way things work, but it can't tell us anything about moral questions. Here's what Richard Feynman says about it:

The typical human problem, and one whose answer religion aims to supply, is always of the following form: Should I do this? Should we do this? Should the government do this? To answer this question we can resolve it into two parts: First--If I do this, what will happen?--and second--Do I want that to happen? What would come of it of value--of good?

Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question--any question, philosophical or other--which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment (or, in simple terms, that cannot be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen?) is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science.

I claim that whether you want something to happen or not--what value there is in the result, and how you judge the value of the result (which is the other end of the question: Should I do this?), must lie outside of science because it is not a question that you can answer only by knowing what happens; you still have to judge what happens--in a moral way. So, for this theoretical reason I think that there is a complete consistency between the moral view--or the ethical aspect of religion--and scientific information.

Ethics is philosophy. But rational philosophical systems require (as does mathematics) assumptions, or axioms as a basis. So what do you start with, i.e. on what do you base your ethical system? Principles borrowed from religion, perhaps?

By the way, Feynman was an atheist.

KDD: It may not serve an emotional void but its utility can not be denied.

Its utility for what purpose? What value judgement do we, or should we, assign to that purpose? See, we are back to square one. We can go on like this forever unless "should" actually means something, i.e. unless there is a real standard.

Ethical philosophy is indeed useful, but it has its foundations in monotheism. Without that foundation, it is nothing but a house built on sand.

[KDD]

So what do you start with, i.e. on what do you base your ethical system? Principles borrowed from religion, perhaps?

Not necessarily.

Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or a set of good character traits.

The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Three strategies will be noted here: (1) virtue theories, (2) duty theories, and (3) consequentialist theories.

a. Virtue Theories:b. Duty Theories:c. Consequentialist Theories