Okay, so I know I rarely reply to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who thinks they got a knock down argument against atheism but some are so obnoxious not to reply would be a crime against human decency. A Pastor by the name of Rick Henderson wrote a blog thinking that he had such a knock down argument. Problem is if I just wanted to do it short-and-sweet refutation just one sentence would do it: atheism has only to do with not believing a god(s)... or goddess(es).
Had Pastor Henderson made an argument for divine command theory as the only way to have moral standards, then he might have made a case for atheist being inconsistent for having moral standards. Instead it seems he assumed that would be the case if he criticized atheist (and poorly) that would somehow make that argument for him. It really doesn't raise much above that. He even attempts to antagonize any would-be readers.
"You clicked on this post for one of two reasons. Either you're hoping
that I'm right or you know that I'm wrong. For those of you who are
eager to pierce me with your wit and crush my pre-modern mind, allow me
to issue a challenge. I contend that any response you make will only
prove my case. Like encountering a hustler on the streets of Vegas, the
deck is stacked, and the odds are not in your favor."
Telling people why they are reading your post and pegging them into a false dichotomy never seems to go well. First people will either hope that he is right, which does not make sense. Why would anyone hope that atheism and moral standards are not compatible? Does someone have a death wish to be murdered by an atheist that realized that life has no purpose and should go on a killing spree? Then it is "...or you know that I'm wrong." Well he get no argument from me. If I knew that he is wrong, then he would be wrong. You can't know something and it be false. He should say "...or that you think that I am wrong." Then to issue a challenge and to only proclaim one's victory as if it so self-evident is arrogant. Even if the impossible happened and he proved that atheist couldn't possibly have morals, it wouldn't covert any atheist with a brain to believe in god. You figure that Pastors care about covering the unbeliever but not Pastor Henderson. He is either too arrogant or incompetent to do his job.
Now I agree that everyone has a worldview but Pastor H. seems to think that there is more to atheism to disallow morality. There really nothing in atheism that dictates any sort of worldview as long as that it doesn't have a god in it. But lets see his 3 atheist "affirmations."
"1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).
2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.
3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will."
1. Does not have to be affirmed at all. I personally think the supernatural is nonsense. However, an atheist can believe in magic, miracles, and the afterlife. Either way I don't see how this has anything to do with morality or even atheism.
2. I agree that the universe is knowable but it not governed by the laws of physics. That implies a cause and effect. What a Law is that phenomenon is so predictable that it can be summed up by mathematical formula. That is it. Oh and it has nothing to do with morality or even atheism.
3. If you got three right, then how you miss two? This at least has something to with atheism because if an person believed that the universe is conscious then they would be a pantheist. However, it has nothing to do with morality.
"Denial of any one of those three affirmations will strike a mortal blow
to atheism. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is
meaningless. A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual
slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national
religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained but
never given any meaning or value"
Again, Pastor H. overstates his case and has no idea how hard he fails. Just because a god doesn't impose his/her purpose will on you, then you cannot find your own value or worth? Has this guy never heard of existentialism?
"A good atheist -- that is, a consistent atheist -- recognizes this
dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning
and morality. Thus, calling him "good" in the moral sense is
nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist, because there really is
no objective morality. At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by
humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair."
Okay, so moral relativism is a problem for Pastor H. What he doesn't realize that it been a problem for philosophy for years. It is not just a problem for atheist. Everyone has to justify his/her morality and I do mean Everyone. That includes theist like Pastor H. At least I know how I justify my morality. However, for Pastor H. "god done did it" is all he needs.
"For those of you who think you're about to light up this supposed straw man and raze me to the ground, consider the following:"
You are aware that quote mining doesn't stop you from strawmanning, right? Of course not. Giving there names isn't enough as a quote attribution to avoid the charge of quote mining. Give the exact location and the full quote so that the reader can see that the context is correct. Just bold that you want to draw attention too and let the reader know what you are emphasizing. Two of the three quotes have ellipses. He is definitely not showing everything. I am not going to contest the William Provine and Edward O. Wilson quotes but I do know Richard Dawkins quote. It is from Out of Eden on the problem of evil. Dawkins was noting that natural problem of evil isn't a problem for atheist because one does not have to explain the actions (or inactions) of a omnipotent being. It isn't a moral proclamation. Even if Pastor H. managed to cherry pick all the atheist that agree that morality isn't dictated by deity and therefore relative, so what? Doesn't follow that ALL atheist should be that way.
So It now comes to what Pastor H. thinks are atheist responses and there only two... I could think of more like Hume's common moral sentiments or Kant's categorical imperatives but apparently morality is due to either evolution or logic.
How Pastor H. objects to idea of evolution making morality a desirable trait in a social species is.... making a few hypotheticals of passing on genes immorally by mass rape or killing the handicapped and the reformer's fallacy. Completely missing the totally easy critique of that evolution only tells us how moral sentiments in the human species came about but it does not really tell us what we ought to behave. Rape can be a very dangerous action to take on. Other members may either exile or kill you in the process and the females may not even take care the young that come from this. This does not help with group cohesion. Most born handicapped died young in the per-historic past so it is not much of determent for evolution since they don't stay around. However, those injured do recover since many cave-man bones have been found to have healed from brakes that would be inconvenient even in modern life. Why would caring for a injured companion be a disadvantage when the can return to work and reciprocate the gesture? Pastor H. seems to lack imagination how cave-men behave. Evolution and game theory can perfectly explain moral origins. Now the reformer's fallacy is certainly a paradox for relativist but I don't see how this does anything with my atheism and morality, or morality's evolutionary origins.
"2. Morality is logical. Atheists who take this route
start in a position of checkmate without realizing it. First, the
temptation is to pervert this conversation into a debate about whether
atheists can be moral. Of course they can. That is not the question.
The question is how we make sense of moral claims if we play by the
rules that atheism demands.
Morality may be logical, but logic does not equate to morality. The
only way to make a logical moral argument is to presuppose morality and
meaning to start with. Try making a logical argument that slavery is
wrong without presupposing morality. It is impossible."
If moral claims equate to real world effects, then moral claims can be made by atheist. Here is my morality. Every person has autonomy and creates his/her own values. To deny anyone of his/her autonomy or deny him/her from following his/her values would be inconsistent. So everything that Pastor H. claims that atheist cannot forbid is easily forbidden by that simple principle. Empathy and reciprocation easily fit into this framework and easily denies all the common moral prohibitions(theft, rape, murder, etc.). How it is even possible to deny anyone of that? Whom will make that decision and why do he/she gets to make it? They will have to use his/her autonomy and values to do it.
"All logical arguments for morality assume that human thriving, happiness
and dignity are superior to contrary views. The strict framework of
atheism does not allow for those starting points. So any person arguing
for 1 or 2 would not be a good atheist. That is, he lives in
contradiction to the mandates of his worldview."
I don't see how theism surmount that problem if you deny my position as well. If god told you that he created humanity to suffer unimaginable pain for eternity and things like slavery and rape are good in certain situations, would you go along with that? Oh wait, you already do. The god of the bible already knows that majority of humanity will burn forever in the pits of hell and commanded and allowed the ancient Israelites to have slaves, and have there way with female slaves they own(rape), and of course genocide. If Pastor H. cannot honestly admit this without getting in a big debate about the bible or theology, then he his not being honest with himself or the people he preaches to. He certainly has no grounds to complain about atheists and morality when he believes in a god that clearly doesn't have morality either.
"Conclusion
Intelligent people ask serious questions. Serious questions deserve
serious answers. There are few questions more serious than the one I'm
asking. How do we explain objective meaning and morality that we know
are true? If a worldview can't answer this question, it doesn't deserve
you.
One sign that your worldview may be a crutch is that it has to appeal
to an answer outside itself -- becoming self-contradictory, unable to
reasonably account for the question. Any atheist who recognizes
objective meaning and morality defies the atheism that he contends is
true.
If your worldview can't makes sense of the things that make most
sense to you (like objective morality), then it's not worth your
allegiance. This new reality may launch you onto a journey of reluctant
discovery. Whoever you are. Wherever you are. Whatever you believe.
You deserve a foundation that is strong enough to carry the values that
carry you."
One, take your own advice. Two, Irony doesn't even begin to describe Pastor H. pitiful state. Three, again even if Pastor H. is right that atheism and morals don't mix. So what? It doesn't make believe in a god. Why can't theists see this as a bad apologetic to convert atheists?
