Re:Why I can’t be an atheist, part 4

Look how good I’m being… 2 entries in 2 days. So Robert’s just posted his 5th part, so I’ll have to get to that next, until then, here’s the 4th part in Robert Meyer’s series that can be found here: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/meyer/061224

As usual, Robert’s quotes are in red and in quotes, and my responses follow.

"Many of the critiques I have received so far, have focused on debunking analogies I have used, more so than refuting specific points against atheism."

I think so far I’ve done a pretty good job of letting Robert off the hook with his analogies. I haven’t heard many points against atheism, though. Perhaps we’ll get a few in this one.

"Some, who want to take the intellectual high ground, will say they are forced into that conclusion because religious beliefs are inherently irrational. But are they really? They are only irrational if one must try to prove them using the presuppositions held by the atheist."

The rules of logic are common to all.

"For me, atheism has a logical problem of philosophical cogency. The atheist worldview has an epistemology that won’t comport with its metaphysical narrative."

Thesis statement. Let’s see how this works itself out.

"The concepts of morality, meaning, self-awareness, personal identity, logic, justice, etc. would also be the result of specific stimulations of nerve endings and eruptions of brain chemicals."

Clearly not. The concepts are no more the neuron firings than they are the words written out on a piece of paper.

"If this is the stark reality, then atheists must borrow from the theistic worldview to account for the existence of anything non-material by nature. In denying the Creator, the atheist ought to throw out everything that is contingent on a theistic worldview."

How the hell does the concept of "2" need to be justified by an eternal creator? Unless you want to say that numbers and math are material things? I mean, I think that Robert is actually, honestly arguing that "2 + 2 = 4" does not make sense unless God exists.

"I find atheism dissatisfactory and inadequate because it cannot deal with the outworking four concepts in a way that I find humanly essential. On the issues of origin, meaning, morality and destiny, I can find no copasetic conclusions with atheism."

So the argument is ESSENTIALLY about how atheism makes you feel about yourself, or your life, or something. Not whether it accurately describes reality.

"What can the atheist offer us about the origin of the universe or our own origin?"

I don’t really know about ultimate origins, but being trained as an astrophysicist, I’m doing the best I can to figure it out.

"He is likely to conclude that matter is eternal, or that the universe doesn’t need an explanation. How might that be functionally different then saying that the universe just popped into existence? The existence of something rather than nothing shouldn’t be thought irrelevant." — (THAN! not THEN!)

Ok, so this atheist says, "I don’t know." The Bible gives an answer that a person wrote down a couple of thousand years ago. Is the point for Robert being that he has to have an answer — any answer except ‘i dunno’ will suffice?

"How does the atheist build a moral code on a materialist reality? "Hume’s Gap," also known as the "naturalistic fallacy," claims that it is impossible to reason from what is, to what ought to be. We can’t proscribe morality from merely describing what the case is. Simply because people behave in certain ways, doesn’t mean they should behave that way. That is why no theory of natural law, in and of itself, can stand as system of morality."

Theists have the same exact problem of justifying what’s good as atheists. See Euthyphro. (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html)

But just for kicks. How does Robert speak out against slavery? There isn’t a single verse written against slavery in the entire Bible.

"Is our death the final reality — the end of our relationship with a friend or loved one? Many atheists believe that a hope of a heavenly life after death is an emotional crutch. But this is a double-edged sword. It would also be a hopeful advantage for the atheist if there were no sweet hereafter, since he knows that if the Christian perspective is correct, he would not partake of it. Disbelieving in life after death can also serve as an emotional crutch."

If I had read this paragraph first among this entire series, I would have completely dismissed the idea of writing a response of any kind.

"Once I was debating with someone who told me that they weren’t impressed with Pascal’s Wager. I am sure this individual was sincere in his claim. The problem is that, even so, he can’t escape its implications. If I find my life’s fulfillment through a Christian worldview, and am no worse off in death than the unbeliever otherwise, why would I become an atheist?"

I’m going to list 5 things.
1. Spider-God (with apologies to AUUB)
2. Two Gods
3. Rationalist God
4. Sock God
5. Christian God

Now repeat Pascal’s Wager with the reward being an infinite paradise for eternity for each case, the punishment being an infinite torture for eternity for each case, for each of the following "tests":

1. Treat spiders well, paradise, kill them? torture
2. The only thing that pisses these 2 off is if you call them One god. (all monotheists go to hell, everyone else is ok).
3. Only people who believe things for good reasons are rewarded.
4. Only people who wear socks every day go to heaven.
5. Only people who believe that a guy died and then came back to life for a little bit go to heaven.

Are you seriously going to smash that spider? Is it worth possibly spending eternity in torture? It turns out that a Christian is in a worse position than an atheist in 2 out of the 5 possibilities that I listed; Christians are in a better position in only 1 of the 5 possibilities.

THAT is why Pascal’s Wager is unimpressive. You can argue for ANY belief or behavior of ANY kind as long as you ignore all other possible gods/punishers.

"People don’t seek God so diligently when everything is going well. Could it be that our struggles in life, our moments of brokenness, and our reactions to human tragedy, are all really innate designs of the Creator to insure that his creation continues to seek him?"

Yes, it could be. Where does that get you?

"The normal yearning for truth, the bitterness of injustice, the quest to understand the hidden mysteries of life, the manifold sorrows, may be the natural cries from the heart of people seeking thei

r God. Those viewing such searching as a crutch against bravely facing the despair of ultimate meaninglessness, could be the ones in denial and guilty of suppressing their natural proclivities."

Whoa, what searching? The atheist does not pretend to know things about ultimate reality that no person honestly knows, yet many Christians proclaim to know with certainty many of the universe’s mysteries. You know how the universe began. God did it. You know how life came to be on the planet. God did it. This can go on for a while.

"Along these same lines, the reasoning goes further, asserting that the non-believer may be even more commendable than the believer, since the non-believer behaves morally without the impetus of either a reward or punishment for his actions. The problem of course, is how one derives a specific system of morality from a paradigm of materialism in the first place."

Virtue ethics has a non-supernatural based origin. Personally, I think that choosing to take full responsibility for your actions in your human life is a higher moral decision than to let Jesus take the punishment that even you say that you deserve so that you can eat ice cream on a cloud for eternity.

Yes. This means that if I was asked at the time of my death by God if I wanted to have Jesus take my place, or if I wanted to take the punishment/reward that I deserved from the life that I lead, that I would choose the personal responsibility route. It’s the most virtuous choice, and the most moral. Even if it somehow means that I’d spend eternity in hell.

"Do some atheists have a motive for their belief or lack of belief? Why do many react as though they are religious and dogmatic in their positions?

NYU professor Thomas Nagel in his 1997 book The Last Word, "…I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.""

One thing that I’d say with regard to this, is that I, too, have some hopes that there isn’t an all-knowing and all-powerful God… because if there were an agent with the ability to stop Jessica Lunsford’s murder, yet refrained. I wouldn’t want that terrible creature to exist with such power — this creature is definitely not worth of worship of any kind.

It’s not so much the "but then I wouldn’t be able to go out drinking every night like I do now" response that you perhaps had in mind.

"Other than the fact that I will be accused for taking these two men out of context, what do I expect from this piece? No doubt it will end up on some atheists’ blogs. There it will be dissected and analyzed in such a fashion that the piece is distorted and misconstrued so that even I would agree with the critique, provided that most of the mischaracterizations were actually true. Then the multiple disciples of this erudite atheist guru will all offer their profuse adulations for their mentor while castigating and belittling the superstitious and ignorant writer under discussion."

I am way more ambitious than you can know. 🙂