Friends, this post is a continuation of a discussion that was taking place in the comment section of “Bill Maher’s Sad Anniversary” (actually, the comment section of the blog in which I first posted it). While responding to one of our readers I realized that in being thorough I became somewhat, yet hopefully not unnecessarily, verbose. I though to save this addendum for when we inaugurated “Atheism is Dead” as it seemed to be a good argument with which to begin a new blog.
As I explained to the reader, I am not turning part of my response into a new post in order to single them out, to embarrass, nor to call them out, or to use the posting section as a bully pulpit. I just thought that it was too much for the comments section and that it may open up new worm-holes of discussion.
To get us up to speed, we had been discussing morality and incest in particular:
Let me make the following argument as an intellectual exercise:
If I were an atheist I do not see how I could condemn all incest as absolutely wrong/immoral. What could I possibly say to condemn an adult brother and sister who have consented to copulation? How dare I stick my nose in their business and kick down the door of their bedroom? But what if they get pregnant and the baby has defects? Just murder it. What about two consenting adult brothers? What about two consenting adult sisters? How could I tell them that what they are doing is wrong/immoral, let them have their fun.
Moreover, if I were to encounter someone who was trying to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives due to pedophilic-incest I may make things worse by trying to comfort them, in a manner of speaking. I may prefer to explain to them that the reason that they are having a hard time coping is that they are influenced by ignorant and superstitious religious concepts of morality that authoritatively declare incest to be absolutely immoral. Rather, rid yourself of these influences and you will rid yourself of thinking that anything done to you was wrong, bad, evil or immoral. After all what is pedophilic-incest but the clumsy collision of two bloated sacks of protoplasm (to employ the term used by the philosopher Ren in referring to Stimpy), mass in motion, the dance of DNA, the outworking of genes.
Now to the ultimate question of absolute morals: atheism has none and atheists have none. Atheist would do well to not argue in favor of relative morality since this leaves them without the ability to condemn any action as “wrong,” “immoral” or “evil” (here I noted that Sam Harris believes that rape served a beneficial evolutionary purpose and here I noted that Dan Barker believes that rape is not absolutely immoral). And yet, when individual atheists do claim to believe in and or possess absolute morals we are confronted with a logical impossibility. Firstly, athe”ism” has no morals since it is merely the non belief in god(s) and thus carries with it no particular worldview or morals. Atheism is a blank canvas upon which individuals pain various pictures of life, the universe and everything. Any claim by any sect of atheism to absolute morality based on materialism is merely an a-potent ethic.
An elucidation of what is meant by “absolute” is that something is what it is and it is the way that it is-whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, whether we would prefer that it be different or not, whether we ignore it or acknowledge it. An absolute moral applies to all people in all times and places (sometimes from the time it is established onwards). What makes morality absolute is not that I, society, or the government decide that something is absolutely wrong but that there is an establisher and potent administer and that there is accountability.
For a sect of atheism or an individual atheist to state, “I believe that_is absolutely immoral” is tantamount to my stating, “I believe that birds should not fly.” It is simply an a-potent and meaningless statement. My believing that birds should not fly does not stop birds from flying nor does anything happen to birds that do fly. It is simply a statement that makes me believe that I have taken a strong stance and made my declaration but it is a mere opinion and thus, ultimately a-potent, null and void.
There are some that would argue that one action or another is “absolutely immoral for me.” Yet, self application, “for me,” changes the category from a true absolute to subjectivism-combining “absolute” and “for me” makes for an oxymoronic statement. You may still think that something can, in fact, be absolutely immoral for you but not anyone else; in which case your absolute-subjectivism would serve only to guide you and no one else. This is not even entirely fallacious: I may believe that eating meat is absolutely immoral for me but that you should eat whatever you want (the terminology is a bit flexible in such a case). This is the only morality to which atheist can attain-self originated, self imposed, self administered, and self regulated, self serving (not necessarily in a bad way, as in vegetarianism) and ultimately unaccountable.
Fine, but where does this self-based morality leave the rest of the world? How does this make incest absolutely immoral? It does not. Where there is no accountability and no justice there is no viable and potent absolute morality. Furthermore, if I state that I have a “visceral dislike of incest” or that “some things are just wrong” these are arguments from outrage. What personally repulses me has no bearing on morality-what if you have a visceral dislike for something that I quite enjoy? What happens to people who, in a materialistic universe, commit pedophilic-abusive-damaging-incest? Well, if they live in a society where the act is illegal AND if they are caught then there are certain consequences. But what if it is not illegal and or if they do not get caught? What does my “visceral dislike of incest” and life experience in helping people who have suffered do to the perpetrator? Absolutely nothing. Atheism not only does not do anything about evil (particularly in an ultimate sense) atheism makes evil worse. The fact of evil in the world is perhaps the very best reason for rejecting atheism.
Atheism makes evil worse for at least three reasons:1 – Let us grant that I decide that God does not exist because evil exists (or that God is a-potent or immoral and therefore not worthy of worship). What does this do about evil? Absolutely nothing. Evil still occurs and now I do not even have God to blame it on.2- Atheism guarantees that we suffer evil for absolutely no reason whatsoever, no ultimate good can come out of it (I do not here mean something as mundane as the benefit of burning your finger a little bit and so learning to not touch a hot stove again).
3- Atheism makes it so that evil is worse. This is because in an absolutely materialistic universe evil benefits the evildoer. The victim of pedophilic-abusive-damaging-incest suffers and may have no recourse to justice but the evildoers got to enjoy it and can very well simply get away with it. In the end atheism declares annihilation for all: the victim and the perpetrator will simply be annihilated at death. The victim may have suffered the consequences of pedophilic-abusive-damaging-incest for a lifetime only to disappear into nothingness and the perpetrator enjoyed a lifetime of committing pedophilic-abusive-damaging-incest and likewise disappears into nothingness.
Some atheists refer to the concept of ultimate supernatural meaning as consoling delusion. Of course, this is a mere assertion and one to which I may likewise retort by asserting thusly: atheism is a consoling delusion, it is a delusion that presumes absolute autonomy, a delusion that presumes lack of ultimate accountability. Moreover, atheism is a consoling delusion which presumes subjective meaning to one’s life in a universe which is objectively meaningless. And, as Tom Stoppard put it, “Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.”
Atheists may claim absolute morality but theirs is merely an a-potent and a-moral consoling delusion, a mere assertion.
Important Points: 1- Arguing for relative morals disqualified one from passing moral judgments or condemning any actions.2- The atheist claim to absolute morals is a mere consoling delusion of an assertion.3- Merely asserting absolute morality does not cause moral actions, does not prevent immoral actions and does not carries along with it accountability.4- The only morality that atheist or athe”ism” can logically claim is necessarily subjective and tentative and therefore, not absolute.5- Atheism’s morality is premised upon arguments from outrage which are a-potent.6- Atheism makes evil worse.7- Atheism does not actually do anything about evil, except complain.8- Atheism guarantees needles un-benefiting suffering.9- Atheism guarantees that evil benefits the evildoer.
10- Atheism is a consoling delusion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.