Filed under: Blogging, atheism, religion | Tags: It's not worth your time., Please do not read this
What does that even mean? I don’t know.
I do know that the atheism/theism debate has dominated this blog recently. And I for one am wholly opposed. However this puts me in the awkward position of censuring myself as I am the post of said offensive posts.
Here’s the point. For about 5 months I’ve been holed up in the an ongoing debate with an atheist. He was later joined by an agnostic (I think agnosticism is worse but I can’t be sure) for a perfect storm of unresolved debate between the three of us. On a side note I’ve convinced both of them to recant their non-belief and become missionaries in Papua New Guinea. They started a ministry called “Former Atheists Rescue Team” or F.A.R.T. for short. Oddly, they’ve found fund-raising particularly difficult, potential donors aren’t taking them seriously and we can’t quite figure out the problem.
Either way all in all F.A.R.T. is doing a great work. There ministry has been explosive. Which has caused a mushroom cloud of good-will and cheer to spread to all men in the region. If you are interested, donating to the cause is easy. You can simply show your solidarity with a small donation of $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 dollars. As a token of our gratitude we’ll send some beautifully cut Indonesian cheese. It’s the best.
So to make a short story long, I just wanted to say that we’ve gotten away from our roots here at “Moot the Point”. This blog always has, and always will be, about striving for the status quo. I regret to confess that I’ve been lax in that pursuit. Rather than mundane and common, we’ve been articulate, persuasive and passionate. Well no more! Mediocrity is not just our motto it’s our way of life. So the next time something on this blog makes a difference, leave a comment and remind me what it’s all about. We’re regularly rocketing to lower plateaus!
Filed under: atheism, religion | Tags: atheism, Dawkins, evil, Hitchens, immorality, morality, naturlism, problem of evil, proof of God, Sam Harris
More often than not in the discussion of the existence of God someone inevitably brings up the question – “If God is real why does he let people do bad stuff?” While this is a simplistic question that’s been answered countless times it put the theist on the defensive. A better (and certainly more interesting) question is – If God doesn’t exist why is there evil?
If God were absolutely removed from the picture it would probably not mean that everyone would automatically join the KKK or pillage their neighborhoods. Likewise, I have no doubt that Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins have contributed to charity or helped little old ladies cross streets.
The theist and the atheist agree that humanity experiences a sense of morality distinct from belief in God. One could argue that this is a result of strictly naturalistic means such as social norms or evolutionary biology. These are the stock answers from a naturalist.
But the problem is not just an innate sense of morality but, conversely an innate sense of immortality. While we have lofty moral goals such as altruism and peace we more regularly observe in human nature exploitation, greed and rage. (And no doubt the list of human failures could be much longer.)
So, the fact that I have within me two distinct and clear voices presents an interesting dilemma: Which is a result of social norms and evolutionary biology? If the answer is both, then which is the “right” one to choose? Or what makes choosing the other “wrong”?
If the answer is, “only the good is a result of naturalism” then where did the other come from?
If atheism can only point to instinct developed through evolution for moral guidance then I have a problem because those instincts are at war.
Furthermore, how is it irrational or wrong for someone to dismiss social conventions and do what they want? The atheist has no way to say that they’re wrong for doing so. In fact the atheist is left with nothing but evolution to explain why someone would cast off the social norms that are supposed to have guided naturalistic morality. So evolution makes the retro-assumption that people should be moral and then has nothing to say about those who choose not to be normal according to naturalistic standards. Quite a quandary.
Theism explains the dual nature of our morality and clearly upholds one and discourages the other. While the believer may fall short on a regular basis but yet the ideal, and the means to reach the ideal, remain. I can get back up dust myself off and be a better person.
In a world without God the existence of those ideals living side by side with human failure seems pointless. Evolution has granted us conflicting instincts and often the much stronger one is precisely the one we should be ignoring.
All in all evil is really more of a problem for an atheist than a believer
