Answering a reasonable atheist on deep philosophical questions
Published: 30 September 2012 (GMT+10)
To demonstrate that not all of our opponents are hostile and unreasonable, we publish a two-part feedback by Tim W. of the USA. He first responded to Answering the ‘new atheists’ (interview with Doug Wilson). In this, he sought to defend the proposition that atheism can provide meaning and purpose. Tim W.’s email is printed in its entirety, then followed by point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati. Then in Part 2, he argues against CMI’s view that morality must be based on theistic religion. Once again, Tim W.’s email is posted alone first, then with responses.
This is an interesting article. I think you are on the right track when you suggest that modern atheists are worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States. Frankly, it concerns me that so many politicians have anti-abortion views with which I strongly disagree. Part of my moral beliefs value limited rights of women to choose the fate of their unfertilized eggs, embryos and their own bodies. Similarly, I understand that Christians have legitimate reason to be concerned that unbelievers will influence a policy or social climate that permits the destruction of actual or potential human organisms. The stakes are high so it should be no surprise that the voices of atheism rise to compete with the voices of religion./
I also agree with the author, and with Hume, that one cannot infer what ought to be, in a normative sense, from what is, was or will be the case. In this way, it is reasonable to say that naturalism or ‘scientism’ cannot suggest a specific theory or morality. However, that does not mean that morality is not compatible with materialism, naturalism or atheism. It only means that morality must come from philosophy (ethics) rather than from theology. There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated ‘sense’ or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct(or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic ‘fairness,’ than obedience to the demands of a deity.
Lastly, I don’t understand the basis of a statement such as “The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile,” or “the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God.” These are philosophical questions that do not seem to be contingent on the existence of a God. Is reasoning trustworthy? Meaningful? Those are matters of epistemology, not theology. Moreover, I think it is far from obvious that neither life, nor anything else for that matter, can have meaning unless one believes in God. God may give your life meaning, but that does not mean that nothing can provide meaning for an atheist’s life. I can imagine an atheist saying her daughter, for example, gives her life meaning. Would you call her a liar?
Tim W.: This is an interesting article.
Dr Jonathan Sarfati replies: Thanks (on behalf of CMI and the article author).
TW: I think you are on the right track when you suggest that modern atheists are worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States.
JS: What is really striking is how many modern atheists have become such delicate little flowers. They are hurt and offended by plastic baby Jesuses at Nativity scenes and are in danger of having a stroke if they hear a student-led prayer at a football game. (But of course, anyone objecting to obscenity or porn should just look the other way or change channels.) Even leading atheist Richard Dawkins is not such a wimp; he joins in Christmas celebrations. What a contrast the modern activists are with the far more robust atheists of yesteryear who vigorously debated the formidable G.K. Chesterton, and remained good friends even after finishing second.
TW: Frankly, it concerns me that so many politicians have anti-abortion views with which I strongly disagree.
JS: It would concern me if we didn’t have that many. Once we dehumanize one class of humanity, there is no limit. See for example Unborn babies may “be planning their future”: What now for the abortion lobby?
TW: Part of my moral beliefs value limited rights of women to choose the fate of their unfertilized eggs, embryos and their own bodies.
JS: Well, there’s the problem: the unborn is not part of a woman’s body. A reductio ad absurdum I’ve explained is: this would entail that a mother carrying a son must have a penis.
TW: Similarly, I understand that Christians have legitimate reason to be concerned that unbelievers will influence a policy or social climate that permits the destruction of actual or potential human organisms.
JS: Yes, that’s exactly the issue. Without the protection of life, no other right, real or assumed, has any meaning. ‘Rights’ to private property, housing, employment, medical care, or anything else, mean nothing if one is not alive to exercise them.
TW: The stakes are high so it should be no surprise that the voices of atheism rise to compete with the voices of religion.
JS: The problem arises when voices of atheism try to silence the voices of Christianity. This includes university ‘speech codes’, ‘hate speech’, the persecution of Christians in atheistic communist regimes, and the attacks of the homosexual lobby on the Church and family. See Gay marriage, politicians, and the rights of Christians.
TW: I also agree with the author, and with Hume, that one cannot infer what ought to be, in a normative sense, from what is, was or will be the case.
JS: A key point.
TW: In this way, it is reasonable to say that naturalism or ‘scientism’ cannot suggest a specific theory or morality. However, that does not mean that morality is not compatible with materialism, naturalism or atheism. It only means that morality must come from philosophy (ethics) rather than from theology.
JS: It certainly can’t come from the axiom ‘God does not exist.’
TW: There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated ‘sense’ or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct(or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic ‘fairness’, than obedience to the demands of a deity.
JS: But where does the notion of ‘fairness’ come from in an evolutionary world? Surely it’s just a delusion caused by certain neurochemical activity that happened to be useful for our ancestors to survive. Just like rape was useful to spread our genes, as two evolutionists seriously argued in a book (look how one squirmed to justify why rape should be considered ‘wrong’). Similarly, the article Bomb-building vs the biblical foundation documents how leading atheistic philosopher/logician Bertrand Russell could not explain why right vs. wrong was any different from choosing one’s favourite colours.
Think of consistent evolutionist and atheistic philosopher Peter Singer, who justifies infanticide, euthanasia, and bestiality. It’s also notable that some critics of my article Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide claimed that Singer was an anomaly among atheists. Yet I showed that his pro-infanticide views were shared by the Journal of Medical Ethics and the vocal antitheist P.Z. Myers. See also Bioethicists and Obama agree: infanticide should be legal. He also wrote the major Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Ethics (1992), and earlier this year, the Australian Government gave him Australia’s highest honour, Companion of the Order of Australia.
TW: Lastly, I don’t understand the basis of a statement such as “The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile,” or “the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God.” These are philosophical questions that do not seem to be contingent on the existence of a God.
JS: But they are. Natural selection explains only survival value, not truth and logic. In Canada, one atheistic philosophy professor argued that these things would have selective value. I responded that this is not necessarily so under his belief system. After all, he must regard theistic religion as one thing that evolved for survival value, yet he would regard this as false and illogical. Thus survival, under his perspective, can be enhanced by the false as well as the true.
TW: Is reasoning trustworthy? Meaningful? Those are matters of epistemology, not theology. Moreover, I think it is far from obvious that neither life, nor anything else for that matter, can have meaning unless one believes in God. God may give your life meaning, but that does not mean that nothing can provide meaning for an atheist’s life.
JS: One of my colleagues wrote in Answering life’s big questions: Only the Bible provides the answers:
Today we are effectively told, in the evolutionary story, that life is a fluke, a cosmic accident. In this case our existence lacks any purpose, so life is a farce. And where are we going, in this view? Fertilizer! In short, life is: Fluke … farce … fertilizer.
Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said that we live in a universe that has “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”. The evolutionists’ universe has no purpose because it is an accident; a cosmic accident. With evolution so widely taught in schools and universities, is it any wonder that so many lack any purpose or meaning to their lives?
As Susan Blackmore, psychologist and disciple of Richard Dawkins said, “If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all.”
TW: I can imagine an atheist saying her daughter, for example, gives her life meaning.
JS: But hardly ultimate meaning, since both mother’s and daughter’s entire lives are just a blink of an eye in the uniformitarian cosmic scheme. Bertrand Russell said in his anti-Christian book Religion and Science:
Man, as a curious accident in a backwater, is intelligible: his mixture of virtues and vices is such as might be expected to result from fortuitous origin.
TW: Would you call her a liar?
JS: Not at all. A lie implies intentional deception, not just falsehood. As you could see from searching our site, we are very sparing with accusations of ‘lying’ (although some evolutionists justify deception and are just being consistent), as opposed to having a faulty interpretive framework. (However, we won’t deny that this prior adoption of this faulty framework is culpable according to Romans 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:3–7 and foolish (Psalm 14:1). But the point remains that a valid deduction from a faulty framework is not a lie.)
Let me first say that I am impressed by the scholarship and sophistication evident in the articles and comments of Dr Sarfati. I think if more creationists displayed anything remotely comparable to this level of sophistication, Dawkins would be more willing to engage creationists in formal debates. I also praise your objective to educate those who would defend your view against common arguments of atheists. It’s a waste of everyone’s time when people advance weak or false ‘arguments’ in support of their positions, or use distracting rhetoric, fallacies or other offenses to critical thinking and discourse. I also appreciate the links provided in your response to my comments. They allow me to save space here by discussing some issues in a more appropriate context. In my following post, I would like to focus on the common claim that morality must be based on religion.
Let me compliment you in return: your arguments for atheism have avoided playing the man and make it possible to discuss the issues without distraction. I will just say that I don’t agree about Dawkins—he seems to avoid the best opponents and pick those whom he thinks will offer little opposition (see Introduction to The Greatest Hoax on Earth? and Polarized reaction to atheists’ refusal to debate CMI).
Part 2: morality and atheism
It is a common claim that morality, and the idea of ‘goodness’, only makes sense in the context of religion. I would argue that this is (1) not a premise that is so self-evident that it can be treated as an axiom in itself, and (2) not logically supportable, and simply incorrect without defining morality in narrowly religious terms, in which case you are simply making a circular argument, or postulating Christianity as an axiom. That is hardly an effective way to argue against claims made by atheists or other unbelievers.
To refute these claims, I need only point out that there are in fact other ways of defining ‘good’ consequences, motivations or conduct, in a normative moral theory. One cannot define morality in terms that everyone can agree, but I would say most satisfactory moral theories aim to protect or promote the interests of members of the moral community, based on consequences and/or non-arbitrary, rule-like principles such that to do otherwise would be to behave improperly in some meaningful way. Certainly one way is to treat Christianity as an axiom, and define goodness in terms of God’s nature or commands, but the fact is that there are many other options. For example, even Kant, who did believe in God, based his morality on moral ‘imperatives’ based on reason. Indeed, few philosophers worth reading would argue that goodness is dependent on religion. In ‘Religion and the Queerness of Morality’, George Mavrodes takes a stab at this in his response to Russell’s ‘A Free Man’s Worship’. In my opinion, his argument fails miserably.
Another way to argue against the claim that ‘goodness’ is based on God, is to consider the challenge based on Plato’s Euthyphro’s Dilemma. I do not want to get into the details of that, but the reader can find a good discussion of it here: You could argue that this is a false dilemma because there is a third possibility, but even if such a third possibility is acceptable, it merely defends Christianity from this substantial criticism. It does nothing to support the false claim that the standards of ‘goodness’ can only be defined, or understood, in terms of religion.
Response to part 2
It is a common claim that morality, and the idea of ‘goodness’, only makes sense in the context of religion. I would argue that this is (1) not a premise that is so self-evident that it can be treated as an axiom in itself, and (2) not logically supportable, and simply incorrect without defining morality in narrowly religious terms, in which case you are simply making a circular argument, or postulating Christianity as an axiom.
At the foundational level, we do treat the propositions of Scripture as axioms, which is different from circular reasoning. I won’t repeat too much what I explained in Agnostic asks whether biblical Christians commit circular reasoning: role of axioms, internal consistency and real world application, in reply to another reasonable critic. To summarize: this set of axioms, the propositions of Scripture, are both self-consistent and consistent with the real world, and provide the basis for meaning, morality, and even science. None of these can be deduced from the axiom of atheism: God does not exist.
That is hardly an effective way to argue against claims made by atheists or other unbelievers.
I’m not so sure. The alternative would be playing evidentialist ping-pong, but there is an advantage to looking at the underlying assumptions. See for example Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple? We are certainly not denying the importance of evidence, even in the previous article, but we advocate a ministerial rather than magisterial use of science.
To refute these claims, I need only point out that there are in fact other ways of defining ‘good’ consequences, motivations or conduct, in a normative moral theory.
It’s a fairly standard view in Christian ethics to look at these aspects. The error of many other positions is that they unduly restrict their ethical analysis to only one of these. E.g. utilitarianism considers only the consequences. Many flawed political policies err by considering only lofty goals and intentions, not the incentives and results that inevitably follow from people following these incentives. Economist and political theorist Dr Thomas Sowell argues this well,1 explaining elsewhere:
“I’d like to get them to think in terms of incentives and empirical evidence, and not in terms of goals and hopes. Over the years, I’ve reached the point where I can hardly bear to read the preamble of proposed legislation. I don’t care what you think this thing is going to do. What I care about is: What are you rewarding, and what are you punishing? Because you’re going to get more of what you’re rewarding and less of what you’re punishing.” 2
The biblical Judeo-Christian position goes further because it defines some acts as intrinsically immoral. Also, because it doesn’t just consider this life but the life to come, it regards it as worse to inflict harm than to suffer harm. This is not talking about legitimate self-defence or the right of a civil ruler or soldier to use force, even lethal (Romans 13). Rather, it’s a case like: a sadistic Nazi SS Commandant during WW2 puts a pistol into the hand of a Jewish prisoner in the death camps, and tells him to shoot another Jewish prisoner or be shot himself. In this case, the Judeo-Christian ethic would tell the first Jew not to commit murder, even if it means that he is himself murdered by the Nazi.
One cannot define morality in terms that everyone can agree, but I would say most satisfactory moral theories aim to protect or promote the interests of members of the moral community, based on consequences and/or non-arbitrary, rule-like principles such that to do otherwise would be to behave improperly in some meaningful way.
All the same, Hitler argued that his horrendous eugenics and genocide program would benefit the German ‘master race’. I.e. gross immorality can be defended by defining certain people out of the ‘moral community’. This was a problem at the Nuremberg trials—many of the Nazi defendants argued that they were following the laws of their country. The prosecutors argued that they were breaking a higher law, but whence this law? C.S. Lewis pointed out:
The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other.3
Certainly one way is to treat Christianity as an axiom, and define goodness in terms of God’s nature or commands, but the fact is that there are many other options. For example, even Kant, who did believe in God, based his morality on moral ‘imperatives’ based on reason.
Right, Kant’s famous ‘categorical imperative’, which for the benefit of our readers is on the lines of:
Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law.
Actually Kant was a strong proponent of the moral argument for God, declaring:
Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, … the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.4
He argued that an objective and absolute moral law required an objective and absolute moral Lawgiver. He argued also that humans ought to achieve the highest good possible (Summum bonum), where virtue is rewarded justly. And because he famously argued ‘Ought implied can’, the Summum bonum must also be possible:
For if the moral law commands that we ought to be better human beings now, it inescapably follows that we must be capable of being better human beings.5
And since virtue was not always rewarded in this life, there must be an afterlife where this does happen. And this requires a God to create this afterlife.
There is a lot of truth to Kant’s reasoning. The extremely wise King Solomon, near the end of a very unwise life, had observed how all the pleasures of life were ultimately meaningless because people die. Even good people meet the same fate as bad ones (Ecclesiastes 9). So he concluded (Ecclesiastes 12:13–14):
“Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”
The defect of the Kantian view is the fallen nature of man, which means a culpable inability to avoid sin, and omitting the essential doctrine that Christ is the only way fallen man can be put right with God.
Consider also one of Kant’s other famous moral formulations:
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means.”
As we have often argued, this makes sense under a biblical framework of man being made in the image of God. But why should man be regarded as an end in itself if the human body is just a survival machine whose end is to propagate genes (as per Dawkins)? I.e., why not rape, since as two evolutionists argued, this helps men to spread genes.
Indeed, few philosophers worth reading would argue that goodness is dependent on religion. In ‘Religion and the Queerness of Morality’, George Mavrodes takes a stab at this in his response to Russell’s ‘A Free Man’s Worship’. In my opinion, his argument fails miserably.
Mavrodes is one of the leading thinkers in this area, certainly—pity about his theistic evolutionism; he appears not to deal with the great problems with this belief.
Another way to argue against the claim that ‘goodness’ is based on God, is to consider the challenge based on Plato’s Euthyphro’s Dilemma. I do not want to get into the details of that, but the reader can find a good discussion of it here.
I’m not sure why you linked to an article by Christian apologist Greg Koukl. I have a lot of respect for him, apart from his love for billions of years (with its inherent disconnect between sin and death), and he seemed to do a good job of answering this dilemma. Indeed, I linked to this very paper in my own article on this very question, What is ‘good’? (Answering the Euthyphro Dilemma).
You could argue that this is a false dilemma because there is a third possibility, but even if such a third possibility is acceptable, it merely defends Christianity from this substantial criticism. It does nothing to support the false claim that the standards of ‘goodness’ can only be defined, or understood, in terms of religion.
Well, as I said in the above article:
God indeed commands things which are good, but the reason they are good is because they reflect God’s own nature. So the goodness does not come ultimately from God’s commandments, but from His nature, which then results in good commandments.
- Sowell, T., The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, Basic Books, 1996. Return to text.
- Sawhill, R., Black and right: Thomas Sowell talks about the arrogance of liberal elites and the loneliness of the black conservative, Salon.com, 10 November 1999. Return to text.
- Lewis, C.S., “The Case for Christianity” in The Best of C.S. Lewis, p. 409, Iversen, NY, 1969. Return to text.
- Kant, I., Critique of Practical Reason, trans. Lewis White Beck, p. 166, Library of Liberal Arts, Indianapolis, 1956. Return to text.
- Kant, I., Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason, trans. di Giovanni, G., in: Immanuel Kant, Religion and Rational Theology, trans. and ed. Wood, A.W. and di Giovanni, G., p. 94, Cambridge, 1996. Return to text.
This line interests me “… most satisfactory moral theories aim to protect or promote the interests of members of the moral community, …” With this, it comes into my mind the word “law”. Here is a question, what makes you think that there will be no one who will want to become the “law” at any costs, with any methods?. Considering the word “community”, it comes into my mind the word “democracy”. I notice that with this system, sometimes something that is considered fair (by majority/winning vote), is not necessarily fair for the minority. Sometimes, it is even the opposite. So, what would prevent this minority from wanting to “become the law” by using any methods?. I do not think that there is a good reason for self sacrifice without God. After all, without God, there is no life after death, why not “legalise” any methods for our own pleasures and advantages? we will die any way whether we follow the “law” or not. Why should we self sacrifice for someone else’s pleasure, and not our own? Just want to put a few things for thought and not making a full page article, so, I will stop here. Thank you.
Indeed, the American founders realized the dangers of pure democracy, since this could lead to tyranny of the majority without checks and balances. Indeed, in many middle-eastern countries, ‘democracy’ means ten Muslims and one Christian voting on who is to be murdered or whose religious building is to be destroyed.
To all who question why atheist advocates such as Richard Dawkins won’t debate religious zealots etc...
Jonathan Sarfati responds: Dawkins IS a religious zealot—for the religions of atheism and evolutionism.
RS: whilst I cannot 100% speak for him (as clearly I am not him) his general reason is that there is no point in debating with the religious persons on topics of science such as evolution as he does not want to put religion on the same level as science which is quite noble.
JS: Science is indeed noble, and part of that are its well-documented Christian roots. But Dawkins is not very good at it. In a conference in May 2012, Dr Stuart Burgess, who leads the Design Engineering Research Group at the University of Bristol, UK, demolished Dawkins’ authority to speak/write on design. He quoted some Dawkinsian anti-design diatribe from Greatest Show on Earth (refuted by The Greatest Hoax on Earth?, then said:
“I’ve been recently appointed to a committee to assess professorial nominations in the design field. The prerequisites include 100 published papers on design, and at least one proven design innovation that’s been picked up and utilized successfully in the real world for at least a few years. Dawkins hasn’t ever published a single peer-reviewed paper on design, and in fact has never even so much as designed a door handle—and if he did, I wouldn’t want to trust it.”
RS: Science is a process of evidence whilst religion (including christianity, islam, hinduism, judaism, paganism etc...) is a process of faith and the two are complete opposites.
JS: Actually, science relies on quite a few assumptions based on faith, but are deducible from biblical axioms (see Why does science work at all?). Conversely, Christianity relies on historical facts such as the Resurrection of Jesus. See the book Christianity for Skeptics (top right) for more.
[Further ipse dixits deleted; already covered by the above—Ed.]
Man’s conduct (morality being the measure of good conduct) is relative. It is based on a selected standard which is often a product of experience. Whether that conduct be good or bad, it is based on a selected ‘norm’, a standard. The choice of that standard belongs to man but the standard does NOT; it is external otherwise it would not be a standard. If you want to find a pure morality (pure good) you would have to have an image of something that represents that pure good. In my estimation, only One fits that bill and that is Jesus Christ.
This has been a fascinating and very informative discussion and I would like to thank Tim W. for the courtesy and respect with which he writes. It’s unusual and a pleasant change!
May I make two points, both of which were picked up by Jonathan. One is that Richard Dawkins actually avoids debating with intellectual equals such as Jonathan S.—and there are many of them, too many to mention here. He doesn’t lack competent opposition so much as he avoids it.
The second point is really the elephant in the room. If there is no one unassailable standard by which morality can be measured, i.e. God, then there can never be an over-arching morality to which all subscribe. Tim W. and his friends may be very happily ensconced in their own moral structure which they’ve erected but it may be of little defence against another group of a different moral persuasion who are also violently opposed to anyone who disagrees with them.
Sorry Tim, your arguments sound good but they really lack substance. I hope that Jonathan’s answers have helped you to see things differently.
Personally I find the whole construction of the argument from morality, to be a house of cards, mind-phlegm, mental gymnastics. As Dr Sarfati et al. have established ad nauseum and to their credit, the argument from relative morality collapses because of its very premises.
It’s just a diversion. The fact is that anyone can be moral, whether they are an atheist or not but that does not have anything to do with indwelling sin.
You can be ‘moral’ and sin. Politicians are an example of it.
Atheists told me I am immoral because I condone the Old Testament pertaining to slavery [but see Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero—Ed.]. These same atheists said false things about me (lies) insulted me and bullied me/sidelined me.
See what they were doing? They were saying moral proclamations (words) made them moral, and that my words made me immoral but their actions were actually sinful. They lied, insulted and bullied, while being ‘moral’. Meanwhile, I told the truth, treated them with respect and done no harm yet I was deemed and judged to be, ‘immoral’.
It was deemed by Pliny the Younger, that torturing and murdering Christians was, ‘moral’. I read the correspondence between Pliny and his ‘boss’, they were both very noble, moral atheists, who sinned terribly! Why don’t atheists act like this today? Because the grew up in a different time, that is the only reason.
I love your rebuttal. I have long wondered if there are any humble atheists. It always amazes me that atheists think they can rationalize and understand everything. How do they not see that they are worshiping themselves? How can they be so arrogant to think that their particluar brain, their body, their life experiences are so incredibly superior that they are capable of understanding and explaining everything? Can an atheist explain real love, not just physical desire and egotistical pleasure, but patience, kindness, and meekness as described in 1 Corinthians 13? I pray for this atheist’s mind to be open and receptive to the fine message you presented. I pray they find the peace that is beyond human understanding which comes through accepting Jesus as their savior. Thank you so much for all you do at CMI, you are in my prayers with much thanksgiving!
I totally agree with Dr Sarfati in that Richard Dawkins picks opponents he thinks he can just steamroll right over in a debate; in other words, the more intelligent the Christian/creationist, the less likely Dawkins would be to debate him.
There is a pretty popular video on Youtube where Dawkins is asked why he won’t do a one-on-one debate with William Lane Craig. And Dawkins’ response was that he won’t debate Christian apologists or creationists, but instead has an open invitation to debate Bishops and other types of lay-level church leaders. Basically Dawkins is admitting that he doesn’t dare debate people who can put forth a solid argument.
«So the goodness does not come ultimately from God’s commandments, but from His nature, which then results in good commandments.»—Excellent
This answers a major dilemma for many people. Too often Christians simply say that we must just believe that God is, by definition, good. Nothing he does could ever be wrong because he is God. This stinks in the nose of normal decency. We could all imagine gods in ancient mythology that we can all be glad don’t exist—their version of ‘good’ is anything but. If God were like these gods, it would seem that we would be morally justified in rebelling against them, even if all we had to base our rebellion on was a loose, subjective sense of right and wrong. So atheists do have a point in saying that a degree of right and wrong must somehow be self-evident—derived from the very nature of existence and our experience of how we like being treated. However, without a revealed moral law, we would forever grope in the dark in our search of true righteousness, vaguely feeling it, but never knowing it as it truly is. The Christian has a better answer. We know that God is righteous, not because he is God, but because He showed us that He is, through Jesus Christ. Therefore commandments and revelations from God can be trusted as truly Good—the same type of goodness we saw in Jesus.
Very nice discussion. Perhaps more atheists will at least learn something from Tim W.’s behavior here. That way, logical and reasoned discussions can actually get somewhere.
Very good article. It certainly demonstrates the fact that without a law giver (i.e., God) all matters of morality, ethics, good and evil become a matter of opinion. Even if a philosophy as proposed by an atheist is to replace God, whose philosophy are we to adopt? There are any number of philosophies to choose from. We can’t have one philosophy above all the rest since there is no one of authority that can make such a judgement if God doesn't exist. In a strange sort of way, philosophical atheists (redundant term?) actually demonstrate better than other types of atheists how it’s much more plausible to believe in a God of ultimate authority.