To date, I have not carried on extensive discussions with many self-professed and informed atheists. I am, however, interested to know their vantage on certain issues, and welcome any intelligent responses I may receive. No arrogance is intended here; I present serious curiosity regarding important issues. Please forward this note to such reasonable ones as you come upon. Thank you.
First, I am capable of producing a concise rationalization for my belief in universal moral principles, founded in the self-revelation of Divine character, of which I will spare the reader at present. I would love to hear a similar concise atheistic basis for absolute moral standards, if any exist at all? Remember, I am desiring to know what fixed, universal principles of right and wrong there are in the atheistic view. I am asking for the final why, not the what, of human ethics. Some basis for why anything might be, in the ultimate sense, wrong.
Second, in the instance that no objective, universal standard of morality exists, I would care to hear his or her justification of the objective right of States to enforce laws whatsoever? Without an objective right, are we not forced to conclude that law enforcement is truly and ultimately the triumph of right by might? I should like to know immediately. There will be no time to lose, jettisoning these fixed ethical principles. I would henceforth adopt the Machiavellian scheme, that the end (an arbitrarily self-determined one, I might add) justifies the means.
Second, in the instance that no objective, universal standard of morality exists, I would care to hear his or her justification of the objective right of States to enforce laws whatsoever? Without an objective right, are we not forced to conclude that law enforcement is truly and ultimately the triumph of right by might? I should like to know immediately. There will be no time to lose, jettisoning these fixed ethical principles. I would henceforth adopt the Machiavellian scheme, that the end (an arbitrarily self-determined one, I might add) justifies the means.
Thirdly, I am curious to know what is an atheistic basis for affirming the existence of universal laws of logic, principles of rational deduction which are true in all places and at all times? If one can not be certain of the universality of the laws of logic, how may he dispute intelligently with any confidence of the dependability of those laws to establish meaningful facts? On the other hand, if we do affirm the existence of absolute, universal laws of logic, I suppose we must agree that this is belief derived, not from empirical evidence, but at last from presuppositional faith in a systemic universe? It would appear we are so persuaded of the probability of universal logic that we affirm it as reality. This being granted, I wonder what is the source of perfectly ordered logic in an otherwise randomly self-generated system, according to atheistic thought?
Lastly, I wonder what, if any, inherent inalienable and objective virtue life has in an atheistic conception of reality? How is human life inherently and positively more or less valuable than vegetable life, or even more worthy of preservation in its present organization than non-living matter? Is there a true, universal and objective fault in grinding living men as one grinds stone to dust, if some useful product can be made of them? If we conclude that life is devoid of universal, objective meaning, mustn't we regard grief over deaths of loved ones to be merely biochemical illusions somehow suited to persistence of the species? Thus enlightened, aren't we enabled in our consciences to disregard these illusions and do whatever we will to whomever we will, so long as it brings oneself the illusion of satisfaction? We might do as the song says, and "shoot a man in Reno, just to watch him die," and have no pangs of guilt; for, by this reasoning one might free himself entirely from the conscientious shackles of inherited moral restraints. He might own the fact that life is, after all, valueless in any objective, final sense. He might even conclude humanity has no more fixed, objective value than that which the chemical apparition, individual man, projects upon it.
If one is determined to hold onto forms of universal logic, objective morality, and an inherent value for the human person, is he not forced to borrow from the worldviews which his atheism purports to deny?
If the atheistic system is received consistently, are we not compelled to conclude that all five-thousand years of collective learning has climaxed upon one bleak lesson: that there is no such thing as objective, meaningful humanity?
Your thoughts are welcome. Thank you.
Was this helpful to you? Please share. Thanks!
© Michael Spotts:. 2010
———————
You are permitted to reproduce and distribute this article in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and that you do not charge any fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For printed copies, as well as web posting, please include the following statement:
By M. Benjamin Spotts:.
Copyright © The Open Life
www.theopenlife.com
Titus 3:3-8
© Michael Spotts:. 2010
———————
You are permitted to reproduce and distribute this article in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and that you do not charge any fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For printed copies, as well as web posting, please include the following statement:
By M. Benjamin Spotts:.
Copyright © The Open Life
www.theopenlife.com
Titus 3:3-8
0 comments:
Post a Comment