Recent increases in the numbers of those who reject traditional theism have spawned a vast army of god-defenders, the quality of whose work, in my estimation, has varied widely. It seems many of these new apologetic theists, being unused to the role, are not well-versed in the practice of crafting sound, coherent arguments. Consequently, you often come across some humorous, even silly attempts to “debunk” atheism. These are actually worthwhile to engage because untangling the intellectual morass can be an interesting challenge. Besides that, you just might get lucky and get a comment so funny or bizarre, it’s worthy of submission to the Fundies Say the Darndest Things website.
But once in a while, you’ll get someone who is simply not interested in defending their arguments. You’re response just goes down a black hole, or is rejected for inconsequential reasons. The latter was the fate of a response to a post titled The Problem of Morality by one Carson Weitnauer, part of his “The Problems with Atheism Series” on his blog Simple Apologetics. Carson didn’t like the “tone” of my response, though, as you’ll see, I believe it was appropriate for his arguments. Besides, it was directly only at them, and not at Carson personally. Because the problem of the disappearing rebuttal is hardly new, I keep a copy for posting on this blog (to his credit, Carson emailed me a copy of my reply as well). Additionally, while I argue (and I think show) that Carson’s case is ludicrous at best, his bogus claims are not uncommon, and serve only to spread popular myths that deserve debunking wherever they appear.
I recommend you read Carson’s original article first to get the full context of my rebuttal. Portions of his article that I specifically respond to are in italics.
Upon reading this post, it’s clear to me it contains a number of errors and misunderstandings which fatally undermine your case. I’d like to spell out why in further detail and look forward to a response.
First, your theistic bias is clearly evident, particularly in the unstated premise that good and evil, as well as moral truths, can only exist if the theistic god exists. Your arguments make sense only in light of this premise.
Second, the alleged problem you describe is not particularly an atheistic problem, but more properly identified as a problem for non-theists, because your arguments, at least in part, apply to deists and pantheists as well. They too do not believe in a theistic god.
Third, the following assertions are false:
“atheism…denies that there exist any moral rules”
“atheism affirms that all that exists is matter, energy, and space-time”
“these elements are not enough to support the existence of morality”
Atheism – the lack of belief in god(s) – neither affirms nor denies anything about moral rules. This is an irrelevant question to atheism. Does it make sense to say a-unicornists deny the existence of any moral rules? Absolutely not, unless you believe moral rules come only from unicorns.
In any case, individual atheists do believe in the existence of moral rules; clearly they do because they practice them each day. What they deny, along with deists and pantheists, is the existence of divine commands. They obtain these rules from reason, experience, and evolutionary programming.
You confuse atheism with the theory of materialism. There are atheists, such as animists, who certainly do not think reality can be reduced to the material.
I got a good laugh at your caricature of how non-theists view morality. Do you really believe we think of it as some kind of physical substance composed of matter, energy or space-time, as you suggested in your thought experiment? What a ludicrous straw man! Are you going to charge us with denying, say, philosophy because we also cannot arrange the molecules or “put the pieces together” to re-create it in a lab?
What you have to notice is that all of this “moral discourse” would just be in their heads! There is nothing really wrong with murder or really right about promise-keeping. Instead, it just happens to be the case that those behaviors are viewed as bad or good, respectively, by their humanoid society.
You just described the utilitarian, welfare-promoting aspects of keeping promises and not murdering, and then dismiss them as merely a view? As if the consequences of those things were wholly absent or irrelevant?
Let’s imagine that, one day, bored in the laboratory, you set up the humanoid society so that murderers find themselves with an extra 10,000 laboratory dollars in their bank accounts. (Imagine a sick version of The Truman Show). This turns out to be enough money to pay for bodyguards, eliminate other genes from the population, and get their own genes passed down in a higher proportion to the next generation far in excess of other humanoids. On it goes for a few generations, and before long, you have a humanoid society that heartily approves of murder, and violently opposes anyone who tries to keep murderers from their deserved wealth and social status.
No, before long, you wouldn’t have a humanoid society that heartily approves of murder; you’d have no society at all. Leaving aside the comical question why 10,000 “lab dollars” induces people to kill others, you’ve assumed that the murderers would not murder fellow murderers, or even their own bodyguards. However, this assumption makes no sense in light of the condition that I emphasized above. Your theoretical exercise is so illogical and incoherent, you should blush that you even suggested it could ever apply to the real world.
If you want to be a consistent atheist, then every time you go from “here are the facts” to “here is the proper moral rule for evaluating these facts” you should stop yourself. Then remind yourself: these rules are just a social illusion.
You’ve failed to demonstrate how moral rules are “just a social illusion”. Your case, so far, is built on risible straw men that in no way approximate reality or the way morality is understood.
What this means is that there is no way to call evil “evil.”
Certainly there is, if you subscribe to certain moral tenets which dictate that it’s evil, say, to inflict involuntary suffering on others, with only limited exceptions. Because someone else may hold to a contrary moral tenet in no way impinges on this ability. It is irrelevant.
To summarize: under atheism, there are no such things or categories as good or evil. And second, any perception to the contrary is completely illusory and is merely a byproduct of non-moral, socio-biological forces.
Your claims are based on nothing more than caricatures which rely on theistic assumptions. One could just as easily build a similar case why under theism there are no such things or categories as good or evil because it denies the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.