Monday, August 12, 2013

Stolen Morality & A Good Argument for God

"Atheists steal their moral code from the Judeo-Christian tradition, then claim that it was obvious all along." - Occam's Tool

I've said this more than's so obvious it's embarrassing that atheists don's see it. Kinda indicts their level of honesty...or their intelligence, doesn't it?

and further:

Atheists always behave morally--they ape the morality of the society they were born into, with a few personal exceptions to demonstrate their independence. What atheists cannot be is virtuous. Morality is the mere rough average of what a culture accepts and will not accept; virtue requires the belief in free will, which atheists cannot believe because without God there is no liberty. From the atheist perspective the whole of human history is no more important than lichens growing on a rock and then drying out and blowing away. No matter what we do, it is irrelevant, because it cannot matter to the rolling on of the universe. This is indisputable from the atheist perspective; a universe that was created by random chance CANNOT have any meaning or purpose, and everything in it can have no more. Cosmic nihilism, yes; but nihilism is an impossible philosophy so instead we get arguments from Judeo-Christian morality turned against Judeo-Christian morality, which is all we've seen in these comments from the atheists. Think enthusiastic atheism would save you in Kampuchea? More likely to get you killed by the atheist regime, because it means you are at least a self-styled intellectual and hence unworthy of the new world. At root, atheism is nothing more than intellectual onanism, a way to preen with self-righteousness while condemning all the unbelievers.

 Wow! "...without God there is no liberty." 

Or at least....for sure...without God, there is no purpose, no choice, no hope, no future, no meaning.

And I'm pretty sure I don't want to live in a universe like that.

When every choice leads to the same end, what does it matter what you choose? No choice, no liberty. And besides, all our behaviors are instinctive, we don't choose anything. Just ask an evolutionary psychologist.

Science nerd atheists of my acquaintance do suggest that "morality" is nothing more than instinct prompted by our DNA for its own survival and propagation.

They claim that kindness, generosity, community, etc..are not virtues but DNA directives that create a hospitable culture for the survival of the DNA hosts...which are really, in their eyes, just vehicles for DNA to use...not "individuals" in their own right.

This, of course, does not explain criminals, whose DNA would appear to be broken.

Or the tens of millions murdered within societies that surely did not prove to be hospitable to their DNA...

Nor does it explain altruism and self-sacrifice of oneself for others besides one's own children...which flies in the face of one's peculiar DNA protecting itself.

It's just not an argument that hangs together for me.



  1. So much to say, but I will endeavor to be brief.

    Atheist "morality" is manufactured on the fly, subject to populism, peer pressure, convenience and self-gratification. Atheist morality is just survival instincts rationalized to what one can do without penalty. In a Christian country, they adapt those parts of Christian morality necessary to avoid penalty. In fascist and communist countries, they adapt whatever the state says is moral to avoid penalty. This doesn't mean they like it but it does mean their morality is totally pragmatic and construed to be fashionable.

    One of the things that cemented my faith was the realization that there is nothing "natural" about the Ten Commandments and they revealed a wisdom beyond human capability. We can only imagine how much better the world would be if the Ten Commandments were ingrained in every person, but they clearly are not. Indeed, they often run counter to survival instincts. Why should you not steal food if you are hungry, or kill anyone that tries to stop you?

    Of course, the heart of any argument concerning morality is free will. According to evolutionists, everything I am doing now, including writing this comment, is the result of the interactions between energy and matter starting with the Big Bang. Every neuron firing was determined long before by natural processes. Probability is nothing more than a tool to overcome our inability to compute outcomes based on tremendously complex initial conditions. There is no free will, only natural processes with outcomes too difficult to predict, or so goes the argument.

    I reject that, not because of faith alone but because of quantum mechanics. Quantum tunneling is one such phenomena that demonstrates that outcomes cannot be predicted based on initial conditions but are influenced by a certain "randomness". That allows outcomes that are not deterministic, and that allows free will, which allows virtuous behavior. Exactly how God implemented the relationship between quantum mechanics and free will we may never know, but we know the randomness essential to thwart determinism is reality. Our DNA may impel us toward certain behaviors, but the final decision rests with free will.

    Thanks for this post Gunny. It was very thought provoking.

  2. The problem with your scientist/nerd friends statements like, They claim that kindness, generosity, community, etc..are not virtues but DNA directives that create a hospitable culture for the survival of the DNA hosts...which are really, in their eyes, just vehicles for DNA to use...not "individuals" in their own right. is that it takes at least as much faith to believe that as to believe in God. It's not science, it's philosophy.

    Science is empirical. If you can't prove it by experiment or observation, it's not science. What kind of experiment can you do to prove DNA "looks out for itself" or "creates a hospitable culture" for its own survival? I don't care how reasonable it sounds, if you can't do an experiment, it's not science. And, yes, that means I consider the term "social science" an oxymoron. It may be social, but it's not a science.

    Computer models are only useful when their conclusions are backed by experiments that prove them. Computer models that suggest DNA behaves this way aren't science unless they're verified by experiment, either.

  3. Thanks fill me with hope.