Felicia Frulla Hollis, Eric Overstreet, David Wu, Dee B McClantoc, Joy Newell Wooten, Russ Braaten, Janet Badon Stephens, Julie F. Pittman, Meme Cromartie, Debbie Boutin, Adam Honeycutt, Barbara N David Malaney, David Brumbaugh, and Gary Morris... here is the answer I promised Id chime in on concerning that atheists view of doing good things: Recently I posted the following question that was originally posited by a well-known atheist as a challenge to the theists he debated. The original question as well as my take on how to respond follows: Question: “Name one moral or ethical action or behaviour committed or carried out by a believer that could not have been committed or carried out by an atheist. And explain WHY the action or behaviour could not be carried out by an atheist.” In simpler terms the question asks: Is a belief in God necessary to do good? [For those who want a snapshot of the answer I believe is sufficient for the above question it would be: If it is subjective then morality can have only the meaning ascribed to it by the individual and, as such, the reason for morality does not need to be investigated further – it is limited to the individual and cannot be extended any further than the same. However, if morality is objective then one must answer the question of what or who gives it this quality. If this is sufficient for you then you don’t need to read any further. For those who want to know how I came to this conclusion, read on.] Today atheists are beginning to strongly assert that morality is possible without God. In fact, they often make statements such as: “I can be good without the threat of punishment from a deity.” Then they go one step further and ask nonsensical questions such as: “IF God did NOT exist, would you still be morally right or good?” I’ll explain why I believe this question is nonsensical at the end of this treatment. Unfortunately, not many people who are either asked or ask the original question realize that it’s a red herring. In other words, it’s misleading. Theists (those who, such as myself, believe in God or, in the case of any number of religions, believe in ‘a’ god), should NEVER claim that a belief in a deity is necessary to ‘DO’ good. Instead, we (theists) insist that God is required for any action to be OBJECTIVELY good and that without God ONLY SUBJECTIVE ‘good’ is possible. Again, in simpler terms, theists declare that “Without God there can be no absolute, objective morality.” [Note: From hereon I’m going to adopt the Christian position when referring to God – instead of attempting to expand and contract the definition of deity to encompass all theistic belief systems. I feel that this will allow for a better flow of thought.] I maintain that the atheist (one who believes in a completely materialistic universe that has no god and is, therefore, produced and sustained by random interactions of substances and non-directed stimuli that produce any number of actions and reactions) CANNOT claim to be able to do ANYTHING that is OBJECTIVELY ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Without a doubt the atheist CAN imitate almost anything that Christians (theists) believe are good – giving his life for another, taking care of the homeless, helping those who are poor get on their feet, protecting people from harm, participate in the healing arts and, in general, loving people. Obviously some things that Christians believe are good (following God’s direction, accepting Jesus as Savior, preaching the Gospel) have to be disqualified from the conversation because they are outside of the scope of the question since the question being asked requires a materialistic view of the world and, as such, God or faith in any transcendent being cannot come into play. This is not to say that these things aren’t actually good… but they are inherently devoid of any meaning to the atheists and, therefore, can’t be considered until further inquiry is made as to the validity of the initial suggestion/question. If those who believe in God and those who don’t believe in God can DO the same ‘good’ things the question that must be answered is: What is the Principle of Grounding that directs each? The Principle of Grounding, simply stated, is: The structure of reality… WHY things act in the way(s) they do. Since the concept of morality is part of reality the Principle of Grounding must be taken into consideration not only concerning how things HAPPEN to be but also how things OUGHT to be. Anyone who has ever studied, even casually, practically any scientific principle knows that those who aren’t experts in the ‘how’ of things happening know, from experience, the results of the principle. Take, as an example, the act of hitting a baseball with a bat. Anyone who has ever hit a baseball with a bat knows what happens: a ball and bat collide, the impact is felt by the batter and seen by onlookers and the ball streaks away from the batter and is either caught by a fellow player or bounces onto the ground and eventually comes to rest (whether because no one grabs it and it stops rolling or because someone catches it). What results from a baseball bat hitting a baseball is something everyone can grasp without also understanding the physics of the acts involved in the act itself (i.e., the coefficient of restitution; torque; displacement of kinetic energy; centripetal force, etc.). This is the Principle of Grounding – the ‘why it works.’ So, the original question does NOT go far enough in the questioning of the WHY of morality. Moral truths are not simply descriptions of how things HAPPEN to be. Moral truth also involves obligations or prescriptions in that it answers how things OUGHT to be. The ‘how things ought to be’ MUST have a foundation or Principle of Grounding – WHY ought they be so; what is their foundation of being; what or who obligates us to them and why should they be obeyed. The original question has a rhetorical quality. Stated differently the original question could be: “Isn’t it true that both a believer and an atheist can know the difference between what is right and wrong (moral and ethical behavior)?” The rhetorical nature of both questions, taken at face value, gives the answerer of the question no other choice but to say: 1) To the original question: There are NO moral or ethical actions or behaviors committed or carried out by a believer that could not have been committed or carried out by an atheist. 2) To the second question: It IS true that both a believer and an atheist can know the difference between what is right and wrong (moral and ethical behavior). What the question fails to ask is: WHY are there right and wrong, moral and ethical behaviors or obligations in the first place and WHY are these same obligations applied exclusively to mankind instead of to the entire animal kingdom? For example: Cannibalism of newborn baby animals is considered to simply be a ‘part of the course of nature’ whereas cannibalism of a newborn human baby is seen as repugnant and can be cause for imprisonment. If there is no objective morality why is this the case? It is NOT enough to say ‘humans are intelligent and society dictates that the eating of your own children isn’t good’ because there might be a society that doesn’t have any moral issues against the eating of children – yours, theirs or others. Who would decide which societal behavior was correct and on what basis would someone decide the whether or not eating children was ‘bad’ or ‘good?’ The worldview one holds, regardless of if it is God-centered or man-centered, has got to present an explanation for things that have meaning to us including, but obviously not limited to, morality. With this in mind, whether morality is subjective or objective becomes a vital question. Since it is vital to any conversation there is no escaping the question as to whether or not morality is subjective or objective. If it is subjective then morality can have only the meaning ascribed to it by the individual and, as such, the reason for morality does not need to be investigated further – it is limited to the individual and cannot be extended any further than the same. However, if morality is objective then one must answer the question of what or who gives it this quality. Again, one who argues for either type of morality still has to answer the question: What is the Grounding Principle? Perhaps an example would help illustrate my point. When you play a music CD what do you hear? Music, of course. Anyone who is not hearing impaired would hear the same music. Note for note, intonation for intonation, word for word (if singing was involved). Hearing music requires only that one have ears that function properly. It should be noted that hearing music and comprehending it as such doesn’t require the added belief in music producers, music writers, types of media, or music artists. While you do NOT NEED to believe in music artists to hear music it necessarily stands that there would be no music to hear without first having said artists. No one would ever dream of arguing against a MAKER of music if they’ve ever heard music. The reason is because everyone naturally understands that in order for music to be made an artist MUST exist PRIOR to the making of the music itself. So, what is essential for someone to hear music (i.e., working ears) is UNLIKE what is mandatory for the music to exist (i.e., an artist). Having the ability to hear music and having music to hear are two completely different things. Even if you didn’t believe in music artists this would not stop you from being able to listen to music. But, if your belief that music artists didn’t exist were accurate music wouldn’t exist. Thus, music becomes PROOF for the existence of music artists. Listeners to music would sound insane if they rejected the existence of music artists. They can certainly argue that they do not have to agree or believe that music artists exist in order to listen to music. That this is true has already been demonstrated. They can even demand that you present even a single piece of music that you can listen to as a believer in music artists that they could not also listen to as a non-believer in music artists and, just as with attempting to show that an atheist cannot perform a moral or ethical action or behavior that can be committed or carried out by a believer, you’d be at a loss to do so. But, this rejoinder doesn’t help their case one iota. The reason is because music, by its very nature, is something that REQUIRES music artists. Objective morals offer the same challenge to those who believe in a purely mechanistic universe (i.e., a universe that is not governed by God). The question is NOT whether one can follow an objective moral code or not. The question isn’t even whether or not one can recognize what the responsibilities of an objective moral code is. The question is: What explains the existence of a transcendent (objective – unbiased) moral code? Rejecting the existence of music artists while also claiming you are a musicophile who is a lover of music and an expert in music genres is, on its face, a ridiculous claim. Since music is proof for music artists, objective morality is also evidence for a transcendent God. Another aspect that the original question doesn’t address is that morality involves obligation and obligations, just as with any agreement, are between people. Materialistic evolutionists (which, by definition, atheists are) would NEVER consider attempting to make an agreement between themselves and nature because, as even the atheist can understand, nature is incapable of entering into a contract with a sentient being. People are the ONLY ones who can enter into a contract with another person and then only a person who has the proper authority to obligate himself can do so legitimately. Take as an example the sale of an automobile. ONLY the person who owns the automobile has the right to sell the automobile. While a thief who has stolen an automobile might enter into a contract with an unsuspecting person and sell it to them the sale would not be valid. So, the only sufficient grounds for objective morality is a person who is both transcendent over the universe and who has valid authority over it. This person is known as God. Therefore, when an atheist asserts he can be ‘moral without God’ he isn’t being honest with his assertion even if he doesn’t realize it. If someone were to ask “If God did NOT exist, would you still be able to be good?’ it’s like inquiring of someone “If automobiles did not exist would you still be able to drive them?” The inquiry is total rubbish and entirely devoid of meaning. Okay, that’s my take on the question of whether or not objective ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is possible without God. Comments anyone? Lonnie (RevLon)
Posted on: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:10:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015