Postblink

Fresh from ThinPancakes… (link to article)

I got the following quoted material from this page on www.AtheistPerspective.com — A site that I have a LOT of respect for, despite being Christian myself. I’m going to number my responses so I can refer back to them so please don’t think I’m being cocky or anything–I highly respect the author of this post and I think he has a ton of good insight.
(Editor’s note: Article after the jump.)

Michael Gerson, in a recent article in the Washington post entitled ‘What atheists can’t answer’ argues that religion offers us the only solution to the dilemma of how we choose between good and bad instincts and that atheism fails in this regard:

“Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: “Obey your evolutionary instincts” because those instincts are conflicted. “Respect your brain chemistry” or “follow your mental wiring” don’t seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: “To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I’m going to do whatever I please.”

I wish I could be kinder to him but I cannot. Why is it that all religious apologists, put on their stupid hats the moment they ponders any question with theistic content?

It seems to me that there are two reasons why one might argue that religion offers us moral reasons to be good.

1. Scripture contains everything we need to live good and moral lives
2. One must be moral because God is watching.

Both, of course, are absurd.

#1 In all honesty, the Biblical moral reason to be good is because you want to. You know what God stands for and you know he died on a cross for you (for theory’s sake, let’s pretend the Bible is true) therefore out of love towards him you love others the same way. Biblically speaking, you can do the worst things to people but if you believe in Jesus Christ you’ll go to heaven–the trick is if you believe in Jesus you usually don’t go around axing people for the reasons mentioned in the previous sentence. I’m not trying to say Christianity is better or right or anything–but that’s the Bible’s explanation for why we should be moral. I think the “be nice and love others cuz you want to” as opposed to “because you fear hell” is the general idea, to summarize.

I challenge any sane person to open up a Bible and not be repulsed by the horrors contained within it. If one were really to live their lives based upon biblical teaching, one might find themselves at best facing a long spell in prison and at worst on charges of genocide. “But” says the believer “it’s a story, not all of it is meant to be taken literally”.

And this is why this question is so absurd. What the Bible thumping believer fails to understand is that it’s all very well cherry picking the Bible to find nuggets of moral teaching, but on what basis does one choose what is moral and what is not? The criteria for throwing out the nasty and picking the good come from outside of the Bible and are not under the exclusive ownership of those who believe in a deity. Scripture itself gives us no clues so anyone making these choices is using the same judgment that the secular amongst us make. The Bible has absolutely nothing to do with it. Those who continue to believe differently have either not read the Bible or have a very sadistic outlook on life.

#2 This portion is mostly a reply to the second italicized paragraph (since my last reply). Scripturally, we’re told to love. Now I’m not trying to say that ‘Love’ is a Christian thing by any means as many many many Christians I know are judgmental, hateful people; therefore, the Christians among us that have realized we’re not Jesus are using the same judgment that the secularists use (obviously, there are secularists who are just as ornery as Christians, so my point is to say that the Christians that get it right are going off of the same teaching as the secularists who get it right). Therefore I agree highly with that bolded sentence in the quoted text.

I find the second point even more humorous. The notion of God as an omnipotent policemen divinely surveying his world so that we coerced into being good is very amusing. It’s difficult to believe that people require the threat of everlasting torture to be good, but even if this were the case, it doesn’t mean they are in any way moral. If one is only good and refrains from raping or killing other humans because they are either after an eternal reward or scared of burning in hell, I’m not altogether sure we could call this morality. Anyone who claims that they only act morally due to their belief in the existence of God and his ability to punish can only be described as immoral. Their very nature is such that one might not want to meet them in a dark alley. It always amuses me when I hear someone spouting this view whilst claiming they were once an atheist. It makes me wonder what terrible crimes they committed before they were ’saved’ and what they’re doing out of prison.

#3 I sincerely love this paragraph. Like I said in response #1 (and touched on in #2), when I’m really “good” or “moral”, it’s not when I’m worried about being smited or when it’s even something that “I probably should do”–if that’s your motivation, that’s not being “good” or “moral” (as the author mentioned in his second large paragraph–the first one with bolded text). In my interpretation of scripture, that’s the way God wants us to see it as well. The Bible says this specifically:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

- 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

I also have to admit to feeling a little hard done by the argument that one is only moral if they believe in the divine. Anyone doing so would then need to claim that I am immoral and capable of the horrors they attribute to godlessness.

Hitchens, in his response to this article states:

“However, it is his own supposedly kindly religion that prevents him from seeing how insulting is the latent suggestion of his position: the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship, which could read and condemn my thoughts and which could also consign me to eternal worshipful bliss (a somewhat hellish idea) or to an actual hell.”

He concludes:

“Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first — I have been asking it for some time — awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have as much to apologize for as to explain.”

^{I think Hitchens has a point.}

#5 I can see what Hitchens is getting at in this; however, based on his challenge, I don’t know that he’s really addressing what the article said. First of all, I like what I put in bold as it proves that religion has nothing to do with it–it’s all about love. But it’s something I was thinking about today (in earnest curiosity and open-mindedness–not in attempt to snuff out atheism in my own mind or anything like that)–if the philosophical theory of materialism is correct and we are all just dust, what does morality matter? From where do people get their rights? If I go shoot someone, why does that matter? Eventually I’ll die and they’re families and friends will die and it will be erased from time and memory completely unless there is some consciousness recording it all. I don’t mean to sound offensive to contrary beliefs and opinions, but I’m honestly at a loss. I can come up with no irrefutable reason as to why anything–much less morality–matters if there isn’t that omniscient consciousness. For that matter–not even for argument’s sake; I just want to be able to understand in my own head–I’d love to hear theories as to why, logically, we should be moral in absence of God.

Again, I’d like to reiterate that my stance isn’t that you have to be religious to be moral, but from what I can tell, there is no logic behind why we should be moral if there isn’t a God–and again, I’m often wrong and I’m just stating my own ineptness to arrive at a plausible conclusion–I’m certainly not saying there isn’t one.

I’d love to hear thoughts.