Re:Why I can’t be an atheist, part 1

I wrote following letter in response to an article that I read online (when I was supposed to be working on my final exam).  Here is a link to the original article:  http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/meyer/061206

           All right, to begin with, I know that this is the first part in a multi-part essay, so these concerns may be addressed by the end of the series. I know that this is long, but I hope that my response can be considered thought-provoking enough to read through. (Your statements are in "quotes", mine follow).

             "The point is that the atheist has no transcendent foundation for his claims of what is moral or amoral in the first place. A materialistic universe offers no unmistakable moral absolutes of right or wrong."

             Let’s assume your statement is true for the sake of argument. There are two main points that I would like to make. The first, assuming your argument is true, by what standard are you saying that having no moral absolutes is a bad thing? The second, how does your disgust with the situation imply anything about reality? It seems more like a description of what you’d like to believe.

             So, for the first point, let’s say that we live in a materialistic universe; there are no moral absolutes or absolute judgments of any kind that are valid.

             You claim that this is wrong, evil, bad or something *not good* — but this clearly is making a judgment of some kind. And you want to claim that this is a valid judgment (otherwise, you wouldn’t be making it).

             Now for the second point. If you would be sad to learn that if you fell off a building you would die; your being sad has NO bearing on the truth of the matter. The issue is a matter of fact — will you get hurt falling from a height or not. It does not matter what psychological issues you may have "living in a world where that’s true". Likewise, if it’s true that in a materialist universe there is no absolute right and wrong; the question is whether or not we live in a materialist universe; not whether we like the consequences.

             "These are merely constructs based on some individual preference. What ultimate authority confirms their truthfulness, besides the coercive power to enforce the adaptation of a particular view?"

             This extends equally to a God as it does fellow man. I noticed that at the beginning of the article you mentioned that you were a Christian…which I take into account in the following.

             For one, how did you come to decide that God was good? Because He told you He was? Or because there was some independent idea of Good, that He happened to line up with?

             Either there is some external morality which exists independently of God; or God decided what was good and what was evil.

             If God gets to decide what’s good and evil, and he defines good as "things that are my nature"; then God couldn’t possibly do evil. Anything that God does would be considered good. He could murder all the plants and animals and almost all the humans in the world and you would say, "Yes, this is how a morally perfect being would act, because, we define perfect morality based on whatever this being does."  — Oh wait, you (may) believe that He already did this with the flood.

             Or you would hear the story of Jessica Lunsford — the 9 year old girl who was abducted, molested, and then killed by being buried alive — and you would note that you believe not only that there was a sentient being that witnessed this entire act, but could have very easily prevented it (yet refrained). Not only do you believe that this being exists, but you also believe that this creature is the supreme embodiment of goodness and decency.

             Of course, if there is an independent idea of good that humans can recognize (and figure out whether God lines up with this or not)… then, there’s an independent source of morality that humans can recognize; which scuttles your entire argument.

             "The sadist may get pleasure from pain, the masochist may enjoy torturing and bringing about pain"  — flip that. Sadist is the one that enjoys giving pain.

             "While this is a legitimate criticism, the Christian in turn can say that non-theistic worldviews acted out, caused more mayhem in the 20th century, then all the religious misdeeds throughout history."  (than, not "then")

              And the person who believes in the Greek Pantheon of gods can gloat over pretty much everyone in saying that the people who don’t/didn’t believe in their gods (which includes Christians, Muslims, atheists…etc.) have caused almost every genocide in the past 1,000 years. Perhaps it’s atheism with regard to the ancient Greek gods that has caused all of these atrocities.

              "How does someone with a metaphysical narrative depicting humanity as a meaningless speck on a clump of dust in a vast universe, suddenly derive the concept of human dignity when it comes to protesting the arbitrarily disposing of some of the specks?"

         &nb

sp;  Let’s say that I don’t know. Are you saying you can’t be an atheist because you wouldn’t be able to say why humans have dignity in a materialistic universe — and that fact would make you sad? I’m curious to actually hear why you don’t think that atheism is true, rather than in what ways it would make you sad or uncomfortable.

            Looking forward to a response,

            A Thinking BUM