Consistency in Positions
I have noticed that the Christian position tends to be the most consistent position in any argument between theists and atheists. Here is yet another shining example of the inconsistency of the atheist position:
Christian extremists have long sought to replace science education with religious indoctrination. If science contradicts biblical teaching (and it most certainly does), then science must go. When it became clear that this was not going to happen, they tried to insure that creationism would at least be included in the educational curriculum, going so far as to claim that it should be taught as an alternative to evolution. (source)
He expresses joy over this news but then adds:
Sadly, we can’t celebrate the defeat of creationism just yet. Even though it is nice to see Texas board members understanding that creationism (in its various forms) is not science, this is merely one battle in a much larger war. . . . Before we praise these school board members for making the right decision, we must realize that they may also be determined to amplify controversy where little exists.
He refers to the fact that the article states that the school board wants textbooks that more throughly examine the weaknesses in the theory of evolution. He laments, “Clearly, more work is needed to make sure our nation’s children receive the science education they need.”
So, what’s the matter? Chicken? If your theory is so solid, then surely it will stand up to close scrutiny, right? Why the objection to looking at the theory more closely? Because the goal of the atheist is the same as what he accuses the Christian of: indoctrination. He wants no controversy to appear to exist with the theory of evolution, so that children don’t even think that holes exist, that they simply believe, de fide, that evolution is the explanation for everything. That is indoctrination, pure and simple.
It reminds me of this:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom 1:18-21, emphasis added)
And:
The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 The 2:9-12, emphasis added)
Next, we have a clear case of an atheist proving the wrong point, but not realizing it. John Ray, a professed atheist, makes the following point:
One small point that I would make about the article I have referenced concerns the idea that atheists characteristically subscribe to moral relativism. I think that is broadly true and it does make nonsense of the condemnations uttered by such atheists. How can they say religion is wrong while at the same time saying that there is no such thing as right and wrong? (source, emphasis added)
Which pretty much sums up what the majority of Christians believe about the mindset that atheism leads to. Note that we don’t say that atheists themselves are amoral, only that they way that they think leads to this type of inconsistency. Jeff Haws from The Atheocracy, answers thus:
Is this guy really an Atheist? First of all, I’ve very rarely (OK, never, actually) heard an Atheist say religion is “wrong” from a moral perspective. They’ve said religion is wrong, as in “incorrect,” and they might say it’s mostly harmful to society, but I don’t think they’d say you’re morally wrong for being religious. (source)
Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is not Great, has a chapter entitled “Religion as Original Sin” and another called “Is Religion Child Abuse?” Therefore, I would have to disagree with Jeff’s analysis that atheists never proclaim that religion is wrong from a moral perspective.
Jeff concludes:
Secondly, no Atheist that I know of says “there’s no such thing as right and wrong.” What they say is there’s no central authority to determine what’s morally right and wrong for everyone. . . . Each individual has to be responsible to him or herself. If you choose to do stupid, morally bankrupt things, there will be consequences for that in this life. Once you die, you’re off the hook, but that’s a bold loophole to take advantage of. There is “right and wrong;” there’s just not a book to scare you into behaving in order to avoid a fiery future. (emphasis added)
Done. Jeff has proven that moral relativism rules in atheism, and that there is no objective right and wrong. Yet atheists continue to appeal to objective right and wrong, even looking for a source for it in evolution. It looks like John Ray is more astute than Jeff Haws thinks he is!
First … thanks, as always, for the trackback.
Secondly, Hitchens often acts as an attack dog. I don’t claim him as my representative any more than Christians must claim Jerry Falwell as theirs.
Where, other than Hitchens’ book, are Atheists making appeals to “objective right and wrong” or “looking for a source for it in evolution”?
You’re very welcome, as always, for the trackback. And I had read somewhere, I think on the RRS boards, that morality springs from evolution. What you have forced me to do is to substantiate that position, which I can do by referencing this article, which speaks of a studies by evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser and primatologist Dr. Frans de Waal that show that roots of morality appear in primate behavior. Proponents of this theory say that biologists should write ethics books, not philosophers or theologians.
As is often the case, you are misinformed about the subject you are talking about, and hence reach a faulty interpretation/conclusion. The issue is not whether scientific criticisms will be discussed: because those debates ARE presented in textbooks and part of the normal teaching about science and how it works.
The issue is that the particular “weaknesses” that are being discussed are just the usual litany of bogus creationist claims based on falsehoods, misinformation, and so forth. You might as well argue that history classes need to include discussion of the “weaknesses” of mainstream history from the perspective of people who think that aliens secretly run all world governments.
There are legitimate scientific questions and debates, and then there is crackpottery. What is being advocated for, and thus opposed, is the latter.
Stating his own opinion is not the same thing as proving anything.
Plenty of atheists think things can be meaningfully said to be just plain right or wrong: like myself.
The dirty little secret of Christian theology is that there is no unique justification for morality available within its doctrines. The concept of “authority” makes no sense in terms of objective morality, and is, in fact, destructive of the very concept.