Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,512
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 6:
Line 28: − [[File:Jerry Coyne at The Amazing Meeting - 2013.jpg|thumbnail|left|300px|The atheist [[Jerry Coyne]] speaking at a 2013 [[Atheist conferences|atheist meeting]] entitled The Amazing Meeting (TAM). TAM is an annual meeting.]] − − Commenting on New Atheism and morality the [[Shadow To Light blog]] declares: − {{Cquote|A veneer of secular morality rooted in subjective preferences hardly counts as “foundational authority,” meaning that [[Jerry Coyne|Coyne]] again fails to refute Robbins’s point. In fact, that morality is anchored to such a subjective foundation means that secular morality is not significantly different from a cultural dress code. The “veneer of secular morality” is just a way for the collective to impose order and conformity on a population of individuals. And if secular morality is nothing more than that, we get to the core problem with atheism – the dress code known as morality simply ceases to be important. That is, if an atheist believes X is wrong, they can easily ignore and dismiss it if it becomes inconvenient to refrain from doing X. − We have already seen a concrete example of this. Richard Dawkins believes that eating meat is wrong. He even compares the eating of meat to owning a slave!<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/atheism-has-a-real-problem-with-morality/ New Atheism Has a Real Problem with Morality]</ref>}} Line 62:
Line 79: + + + + + + + + +
New Atheism and morality (view source)
Revision as of 14:33, February 27, 2017
, 14:33, February 27, 2017no edit summary
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]
[[Craig Hazen]] wrote:
{{Cquote|It’s been fascinating to watch the very vocal and prolific new atheists, such as [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris]], [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], make a case for objective morality. The phrase “objective morality” is a way of indicating that some behaviors are right (truth telling, kindness, tolerance) and some behaviors are wrong (rape, murder, racism) — for real. Morality is not just a matter of personal preference and choice (akin to liking peanuts better than almonds), but rather laws that are real and true and binding no matter what one thinks about them or whether one chooses to follow them.
The reason it has been fun to watch the new atheists defend this idea is because atheists of an earlier generation (such as J.L. Mackie and [[Bertrand Russell]]) thought it folly to do so. Classic atheists from the mid-20th century were very reluctant to grant that there was an objective moral law because they saw that it was just too compelling for believers to take the easy step from the moral law to God who was the “moral law giver.” Accepting a real objective moral law would be giving far, far too much ground to the Christians and other theists.
In my view, this shift in attitude toward moral values among the new atheists is an indicator that our work in [[Christian apologetics]] and philosophy has had an impact. I can’t count the times when in forums on various college campuses more traditional atheists and agnostics have had to squirm under the questioning from me or my colleagues about basic moral questions.
“Is it wrong to torture babies for fun?” “Is it wrong to treat a person as subhuman because she has darker skin?” As you can imagine, if an atheist were to answer “no,” or “well, it depends,” or “I prefer not to do these things, but how can I judge others,” to these questions he would be running into some real trouble with the audience. Whether the audience is filled with conservative Christians or radical unbelievers, people in our culture have an aversion to those who waffle or dodge on such fundamental and obvious moral values.
I think the new atheists got tired of being in such a public relations conundrum, so they began embracing basic morality as some sort of natural feature of the physical universe. They now tend to maintain that there are objective morals, but that these morals did not come from God. Is it wrong to torture babies for fun? Of course it’s wrong, says the new atheist. Goal accomplished. No more looking like an uncaring monster on stage in debates with Christians.
On the one hand, I think the new atheists have been helped in public discourse by their recent adoption of rudimentary moral values. One rarely feels now like one is being addressed by an amoral scoundrel when a new atheist is speaking in public. On the other hand, the new atheist now suffers from a problem that the old atheists would have quickly warned them about: How in the world are we going to explain where these objective moral values came from?
...the daunting problem for the new atheist is the nature and source (ontology) of the moral law. Here are some questions you can ask Richard Dawkins the next time you sit next to him on a bus:
• If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, help me understand what a moral value is (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?
• How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of objective moral values? Did the big bang really spew forth “love your enemy?” If so, you have to help me understand that.
• What makes your moral standard more than a subjective opinion or personal preference? What makes it truly binding or obligatory? Why can’t I just ignore it? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?<ref>[http://magazine.biola.edu/article/11-summer/can-we-be-good-without-god/ Can We Be Good Without God?] by Craig J. Hazen, Biola University</ref>}}
The author and poet Michael Robbins declares about the morality of [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]]:
The author and poet Michael Robbins declares about the morality of [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]]:
{{Cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]]’s [[atheism]] is far from exultant—he is not crowing about the death of [[God]], much as he despises [[Christianity]]. He understands how much has been lost, how much there is to lose.
{{Cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]]’s [[atheism]] is far from exultant—he is not crowing about the death of [[God]], much as he despises [[Christianity]]. He understands how much has been lost, how much there is to lose.
. . . The point is not that a coherent morality requires theism, but that the moral language taken for granted by liberal modernity is a fragmented ruin: It rejects metaphysics but exists only because of prior metaphysical commitments.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/07/atheists_the_origin_of_the_species_by_nick_spencer_reviewed.html Know Nothing: The true history of atheism] By Michael Robbins</ref>}}
. . . The point is not that a coherent morality requires theism, but that the moral language taken for granted by liberal modernity is a fragmented ruin: It rejects metaphysics but exists only because of prior metaphysical commitments.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/07/atheists_the_origin_of_the_species_by_nick_spencer_reviewed.html Know Nothing: The true history of atheism] By Michael Robbins</ref>}}
[[File:Ravi Zacharias.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Ravi Zacharias]] ]]
[[File:Ravi Zacharias.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Ravi Zacharias]] ]]
The [[Ravi Zacharias]] International ministry declares about New Atheism and morality:
The [[Ravi Zacharias]] International ministry declares about New Atheism and morality:
In his survey of arguments for God’s existence, Dawkins does touch on a sort of moral argument that he calls the Argument from Degree.21 But it bears little resemblance to the argument presented here. We’re not arguing from degrees of goodness to a greatest good, but from the objective reality of moral values and duties to their foundation in reality. It’s hard to believe that all of Dawkins’s heated moral denunciations and affirmations are really intended to be no more than his subjective opinion, as if to whisper with a wink, “Of course, I don’t think that child abuse and homophobia and religious intolerance are really wrong! Do whatever you want—there’s no moral difference!” But the affirmation of objective values and duties is incompatible with his atheism, for on naturalism we’re just animals, relatively advanced primates, and animals are not moral agents. Affirming both of the premises of the moral argument, Dawkins is thus, on pain of irrationality, committed to the argument’s conclusion, namely, that God exists.<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God] by William Lane Craig</ref>}}
In his survey of arguments for God’s existence, Dawkins does touch on a sort of moral argument that he calls the Argument from Degree.21 But it bears little resemblance to the argument presented here. We’re not arguing from degrees of goodness to a greatest good, but from the objective reality of moral values and duties to their foundation in reality. It’s hard to believe that all of Dawkins’s heated moral denunciations and affirmations are really intended to be no more than his subjective opinion, as if to whisper with a wink, “Of course, I don’t think that child abuse and homophobia and religious intolerance are really wrong! Do whatever you want—there’s no moral difference!” But the affirmation of objective values and duties is incompatible with his atheism, for on naturalism we’re just animals, relatively advanced primates, and animals are not moral agents. Affirming both of the premises of the moral argument, Dawkins is thus, on pain of irrationality, committed to the argument’s conclusion, namely, that God exists.<ref>[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God] by William Lane Craig</ref>}}
== New atheist Jerry Coyne and morality ==
[[File:Jerry Coyne at The Amazing Meeting - 2013.jpg|thumbnail|left|300px|The atheist [[Jerry Coyne]] speaking at a 2013 [[Atheist conferences|atheist meeting]] entitled The Amazing Meeting (TAM). TAM is an annual meeting.]]
Commenting on New Atheism and morality the [[Shadow To Light blog]] declares:
{{Cquote|A veneer of secular morality rooted in subjective preferences hardly counts as “foundational authority,” meaning that [[Jerry Coyne|Coyne]] again fails to refute Robbins’s point. In fact, that morality is anchored to such a subjective foundation means that secular morality is not significantly different from a cultural dress code. The “veneer of secular morality” is just a way for the collective to impose order and conformity on a population of individuals. And if secular morality is nothing more than that, we get to the core problem with atheism – the dress code known as morality simply ceases to be important. That is, if an atheist believes X is wrong, they can easily ignore and dismiss it if it becomes inconvenient to refrain from doing X.
We have already seen a concrete example of this. Richard Dawkins believes that eating meat is wrong. He even compares the eating of meat to owning a slave!<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/atheism-has-a-real-problem-with-morality/ New Atheism Has a Real Problem with Morality]</ref>}}
== See also ==
== See also ==