... so says one of my heroes, Charles Murray.
I've come to think over the last 20 years that secular humanism has no moral bottom. Absent a core of absolutes of right and wrong, anything can be rationalized. Absent some divine origin for those absolutes, they cannot be absolutes.
Twenty years ago, I saw the potential for such rationalizations. Since then, I have watched the most secular elements of societies in the West rationalize ever-widening departures from what used to moral principles that secular humanism claimed it could sustain.
I admire many secular humanist thinkers. But consider how few Steven Pinkers remain and how many who are now advocating forms of totalitarianism. Secular humanism rests on sand.
As for the falsehoods of religion, I've also become convinced over the last 20 years that they are unimportant compared to the core insights shared by the great religious traditions. So IMO the answer to your question is no. Religion is indispensable to a moral civilization.
Following my faith tradition which requires me to be humble, meek and mild, I've gotten into a few arguments on Twitter lately, mostly with atheists. They all stumble on this requirement:
"A is not true" has the same requirements for proof that "A is true" has.
I've come to the conclusion that their air of superiority rests on the idea that they don't have to prove anything. When confronted with a request for proof that God does not exist and its corollary that the empirical constants of the Universe have their values by random chance, they splutter and fuss, but in the end, they've got nothing. It's never occurred to them that they need to prove anything.
Why should I take their claims that God does not exist on faith?
These atheists, not all atheists, mind you, are the kinds of people who show up at meetings at work and sneer at everyone else's ideas, but never have any of their own. Where I work, we call them, "jerks."
Of course, they can sometimes summon friends who like their tweets.
 |
| This person agreed with my opponent today. Definitely a force with which I must reckon. |
Getting back to Charles Murray's point, it's something that I've been noodling on this blog for years. Whether it was the Aztecs or Julius Caesar, the Comanche or the Ashanti, without a foundation for your morals, you can end up justifying nearly anything.
See also: little girls, double mastectomies of.
I haven't gotten to this part of the conversation with my atheist interlocutors yet. They all become apoplectic when I suggest they are taking their own assertions on faith. I did meet one honest fellow who agreed that life has no meaning and when he died, it would be as if he had never lived at all. It led him, predictably, to suggest that life was all about experiencing as much pleasure as possible. Fair enough. I could respect that, even if I saw darkness in his future.
Oh well.
6 comments:
==But consider how few Steven Pinkers remain ...==
... who advocates not only abortion, but open infanticide.
==I did meet one honest fellow who agreed that life has no meaning and when he died, it would be as if he had never lived at all. It led him, predictably, to suggest that life was all about experiencing as much pleasure as possible. Fair enough. I could respect that, even if I saw darkness in his future.==
In his heart of hearts, he still believes that he will still exist after his death.
=="A is not true" has the same requirements for proof that "A is true" has.==
Indeed.
Also, proving "A is not true" to be false is logically the same as proving "A is true" to be true.
So, here's the thing. Sure, there is a binary choice, "Yes there is a Supreme Being" vs. "No, there isn't". If that is all that is said on the matter, there is no way to prove either way, because "Supreme Being" is poorly defined. It is easy enough to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that, say, Zeus doesn't exist, because the myths give him pretty definite characteristics and we can just look to see if there is something out there acting like Zeus. But if you just say "God exists and is beyond our comprehension", like so many people do, then where does that actually get you?
You can't prove something does or doesn't exist if you don't have an idea what it is going to look like when you find it. So what is your working definition of a Supreme Being?
atheistic dodging (and lying): “So, here's the thing. Sure, there is a binary choice, "Yes there is a Supreme Being" vs. "No, there isn't". If that is all that is said on the matter, there is no way to prove either way, because "Supreme Being" is poorly defined.”
Ah -- and ignoring for the moment that the phrase “Supreme Being” is itself a dodge -- but that is not all there is to say on the matter, as I have shown multiple times on this blog, and on my own blog.
And, of course, you lie, for the term ‘God’ is not “poorly defined” – as everyone knows, ‘God’ refers to “the cause of all that is”. You know, sort of like how some of your ilk like to assert that “Gravity (*) is the cause of all that is” … but more substantive.
(*) ‘gravity’ -- now *there* is a poorly defined term.
atheistic dodging: “ It is easy enough to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that, say, Zeus doesn't exist, …”
Really? Then do so … with the proviso that your demonstration cannot simultaneously demonstrate that you don’t exist.
The fact is, there is no “theistic continuum”; that continuum is an atheistic myth/lie. Most paganisms, and certainly Classical paganism, cluster with atheism, not with “theism” (i.e. Judaism/Christianity). Biblical religion is on a different plane altogether, to say nothing of being on a different axis, from paganism and atheism.
Consider --
Classical paganism: In the beginning was Chaos, from which Cosmos “arose”, from which living, rational beings “arose”.
Western-style atheism: In the beginning was a chaotic state, which self-organized into an ordered state (while, at the same time, becoming increasingly disordered over time), from which living, rational beings “arose”.
The atheistic account of how it is that we exist is just the pagan account said in different words.
Under paganism, the gods are as much effects of “nature” as men are under atheism. Under “theism”, the God is not an affect of anything, but is rather the cause of all things, including men.
atheistic dodging: “But if you just say "God exists and is beyond our comprehension", like so many people do, then where does that actually get you?”
When have I even said that … in the way that you mean it to be taken? Certainly, the fullness of God is beyond our comprehension. But than, so is the fullness of you beyond your own (or my) comprehension; but that in no wise means that you (nor I) can know nothing about you.
Hell! In Current Year, your ilk pretend to be unable to comprehend what the words ‘woman’ and ‘man’ mean.
atheistic dodging: “You can't prove something does or doesn't exist if you don't have an idea what it is going to look like when you find it.”
Oddly enough, when your ilk are blathering on that “There is NO evidence that God exists!”, and we ask, “What sort of things would you accept as being evidence that God is?” we get either silence or demands for gaps-in-nature.
atheistic lying: “… because "Supreme Being" is poorly defined … [in contrast] the myths give [Zeus] pretty definite characteristics”
The Bible gives God very defined characteristics, the very first of which is that God intentionally caused (**) the world, and ourselves, to exist.
atheistic lying-and-dodging: “… and we can just look to see if there is something out there acting like Zeus.”
God is not just another effect of “the universe”; rather, he is its cause. But you people keep trying to insist that the question of God can be approached only if he is just another effect.
atheistic dodging: “So what is your working definition of a Supreme Being?”
I don’t care about ‘Supreme Being’; that term is just another way to try to hide God, and to hide from God.
[continued due to character limit]
The very first claim made of God – and the one that you God-deniers must deny, else you stop being God-deniers – is that God intentionally caused (**) the world, and ourselves, to exist.
It is by rational examination of that assertion, and especially of its denial, that God-denialism is shown to be the false understanding of the nature of reality. And, as there is no third option, to show that the denial of the reality of God is the false understanding of the nature of reality, is simultaneously to show that affirmation of the reality of God is the true understanding of the nature of reality.
(**) to be more precise, but to speak in a way that most people seems to struggle comprehending, God causes the world, and people, to exist.
Post a Comment