: In his Rite and Reason articles last July/August, Prof James Mackey’s central thesis is that the theory of evolution (which he describes as “Dawkins’s Darwinism”) is unfit to serve as a moral code for the human race.
I agree. It is not. And no atheist that I know, particularly Richard Dawkins, has ever suggested that it is or should be or even could be.
This brings religious people into the same place as atheists in seeking to identify the foundation of morality. [b]Many atheists believe that the best criteria to use is: what effect does this action have on the well-being or suffering of sentient beings?[/b]
And off he goes. But what makes this rationale for morality authoritative? If according to their materialistic worldview, where history is going nowhere and death is personal extinction, why should anyone ever care about the “well-being or suffering of sentient beings” other than themselves? If life is simply a cosmic accident why should they care if the species survives?
And note that he says “many” not all. On what basis does he reject the morality of the others? Why should this statement rise above the purely personal opinions of the author and have precedence over my or any others’ personal opinions?
I won’t even address his fleeting comments to Jewish and Christian Scripture except to say that his ignorance comes through loud and clear.
He paraphrases Sam Harris:
[blockquote]…the worst possible world is one in which all conscious beings are suffering to the maximal extent for no reason. He argues that, in principle, every step away from that world is right, and every step towards that world is wrong.[/blockquote]
One amoral solution: euthanize (preferably) or simply murder (if necessary) everybody who doesn’t share your worldview and morality, or is suffering any imperfection or malady. (Sounds unnervingly like mid-20th century, no?) FIrst, you have relieved untold suffering (OK, maybe you increased it very briefly, but in the big evlutionary picture, it’s greatly reduced.) Second, you have advanced the species, making it stronger and more unified. Is that the sort of morality an atheist would advocate as “right”?
[blockquote]In this context, religion distracts us from identifying right and wrong because religious commands are not based on maximising the well-being or minimising the suffering of sentient beings.[/blockquote]
Really? Has he not heard of the two greatest commandments, the golden rule, the sermon on the mount? Maybe our differing worldviews result in different understandings of ‘well-being’ and ‘suffering’.
[blockquote]Religion assumes that man is incapable of making moral decisions without supernatural guidance. But we are. It is a skill, and our understanding of it evolves as we practise empathy and reciprocity.[/blockquote]
Yeah, how’s that workin’ out for ya?
different people believe that different gods are telling them that different things are right and wrong.
Not so much; one of the old arguments against the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is that his moral teaching was, in the main, consistent with “the great moral teachers” of the world. There are, of course, religious systems which teach human sacrifice, but the great world religions are not among them.
…religious commands are not based on maximising the well-being or minimising the suffering of sentient beings.
Says him.
The shallow hedonism (and selective quotes from scripture) continues the great atheist tradition of empty arguments no truly intelligent, or moral, person could accept. When the atheists own the body count atheism produced in the 20th century along, then they will have a legitimate claim to intellectual integrity. When the atheists have produced systems of health care, education, and social services comparable to those of Christians (even allowing for their tiny numbers), then they will have a claim to moral integrity.
[blockquote] … the Christian god conveys instructions that we intuitively know are wrong.
The Bible says we should love our neighbour, but stone him to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.[/blockquote]
A variation on the “shellfish argument”? Er, what does the Bible say about the trustworthiness of our intuition?
[blockquote] Religion assumes that man is incapable of making moral decisions without supernatural guidance.[/blockquote]
Seems to refer to a rather narrow subgroup of professing Christian believers, leaving out much of catholic and reformed Christianity, let alone most of “religion” in general.
This appears to be a classic sophomoric affirmation of the original temptation; “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
I think you raised an excellent point Br. Michael. The foundations of Atheism completely contradict the idea that they would act in the best interets of others. For anyone who’s interested [url=http://bibleoutpost.com/index.php/2011/10/a-response-to-atheists-and-religious-alike-seek-to-identify-foundation-of-morality/]here’s a full Christian response to Michael Nugent’s article.[/url]
I’m reading Eifelheim by Michael Flynn, which is mainly about the encounter of a 14th century Christian priest and an alien race that crashes near a German village.
I’m not far enough in to know where it’s going, but at this point, they are trying to sort out conflicting moral systems, which seems relevant to this topic. The aliens, as it turns out, are a “might-is-right” culture with a deterministic mind-set (“what you are is what you are”) and can’t understand concepts like “charity” and “sacrifice”. It’s an interesting discussion so far.
The reality of atheism is, indeed, the exercise of raw power when they gain control. They can chatter all day about morality, but we know from history what their moral system is.
http://www.amazon.com/Eifelheim-Michael-Flynn/dp/0765300966