Daily Archives: April 5, 2009

Harris & Russell Make a big Mistake

Atheism is Dead has an excellent post about a mistake being passed around by Sam Harris. In The End of Faith, Harris writes that Bertrand Russell:

had it right when he made the following observation: ‘The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured these infants went to Heaven.

‘No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so. In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals….’

I find it amazing that “No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action.” I would like to know, first, what Harris’s definition of “orthodox” is, then I would like to know what definition of “logical” that he is working from.

Without that knowledge, Mariano provides the answer in Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder.” Now, this is kind of dangerous. First, he doesn’t know what definitions of the terms “orthodox” and “logical” that Harris was working from. Second, he leaves himself open to the usual suspect charges of genocide in the Bible. Now don’t worry, Mariano, I’ve provided commentary on God-ordered genocide in the Bible right here.

Mariano then has a lengthy commentary on the Great Commision, which I agree with wholeheartedly. The purpose of the Christian is to baptize and then teach, not to baptize and then kill. That just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Great post, as usual, from the good folks over at Atheism is Dead. I highly reccomend reading it, as my summary doesn’t do it any justice. The post touches on themes that I’ve been blogging about over here for the last couple of weeks–that atheism has no grounds for morals. That’s not to say that atheists themselves are immoral, but that atheism itself provides no grounds for an absolute or universal moral law. We all know that one exists, there’s no point in denying it. The existence of such a law points to the existence of a Lawgiver: God.

Which makes me wonder: why are atheists always complaining that there is no evidence for God? If they mean empirical, scientific evidence, then I would say that there is plenty. Namely, the universe itself. Atheism has no answer for the ultimate philosophical dilemma: Why is there something rather than nothing? The apostle Paul said that men are without excuse for not knowing about God, because nature provides all the evidence that you need.

On the other hand, there is also much philosophical evidence for God. The moral argument, the ontological argument, and the teleological argument (which, contrary to popular opinion, has not been refuted completely).

Yet, point any of this out, and the atheist rationalizes it all away, still complaining that there is no evidence for God.