I had mixed emotions. I felt like Dawkins logic was faulty yet his ability to impress an audience by bagging other religions in a humourous way provided a good smoke screen. I thought he was a better politician than the politicians at not answering questions.

But for all my fustrations at Dawkins I thought he talked about Jesus and the gospel more than anyone else. I thought the most poignant moment was when the presenter afterwards questioned whether the cross as a sacrifice was admirable. Dawkins replied something like:

“Is it really admirable that God came down to die on a cross as a sacrifice for the sin of humans?”

Up until then I felt everything he said was getting a clap. But in that moment there was silence by the majority and a few Christians saying yes. I thought it was good preaching through the mouth of a donkey. In only watched it once but I was blown away when he said it. Did anyone else notice that moment?

Kurt, yes I noticed that too!

My random thoughts:
* Dawkins has a large personal following, hence the interest from the audience. I don’t think it’s representative of much more than that – put Dawkins and a bunch of politicians together and it’s not really going to inspire Christians to show up. I think it was a bit much to have the politicans being the Christian voices on the panel, but that said I think they did a reasonable job, Steve Fielding notwithstanding. Tony Burke was really good.

* The disappointing thing about Dawkins that aggravates a lot of people (going by the twitter/facebook comments is his inconsistency – the ‘life is wonderful!’ line is a trite crowd pleaser (& obviously nonsense, ala Haiti, Congo, etc etc) but he’d be much more intellectually honest to say something more along the lines of his famous quote “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” I expect that wouldn’t get such warm applause though!

* There’s two sides to Dawkins, the careful, thoughtful, well reasoned one; and the angry, irrational, passionate one. It’s a shame the latter turns Christians off the former, as he actually does have interesting things to say on science (<– and even saying that as a Christian seems like some kind of heresy!).

* The major issue with evolution (for example) is that we have almost nothing to say about it — we waffle over it and say "Oh it doesn't matter" but we only say that because we haven't thought much about it. That creates a vacuum that's filled by the Young Earth Creationists like Steve Fielding who believe not just that immortal, vegetarian dinosaurs and man were hanging in 4000BC (really, that's creationism!), but that Christianity cannot be true if that *isn't* true (or if evolution is true – see Albert Mohler for eg), because there was death before the fall (& with no Adam and Eve there was no specific fall) so what could Jesus be saving us from? The atheists feed off that, we have nothing much to say, and the cycle continues, and is furthered by more nonsense like the ID movement.

* The vacuum there is really severe in terms of written work from Christians too, I've looked and there's really very, very little of substance which is, frankly, a little alarming.

* Not only do we have not much to say on evolution (I heard the CBTB mp3 sermon saying it couldn't be true too, btw), arguments like absolute morality are actually much weaker than we like to think. Working relative morality can be found in nature; what we think is moral has progressed quite a bit (eg as Dawkins mentioned — slavery, women's rights, child marriage etc) in way which aren't stated as absolutes in the bible, and finally some things everyone would agree are immoral without need to appeal to God. The question is still, of course, about what happens ultimately, but the arguments are more sophisticated than absolute-morality-as-a-trump-card. Again, we really need to think a lot harder about these issues.

* Wow, this is long, but just to finish, I thought the interest in the afterlife was interesting..?

I love Richard Dawkins. He is a intellectual power house.

I really felt pity for the other religious panelists though. They were all shot down in flames.

Yes, I noticed that moment, Kurt. Probably the best moment of the show, and I was hoping for a more resounding ‘yes’ from any on the set who claimed to be Christian.

(I didn’t realise that Julie Bishop and/or Tony Burke were. Maybe they aren’t.)

RE: “We ought to be concerned at the support that was expressed to Dawkins’ subjective morality – the logical implications of this are frightening. ”

Did it go over your head that there is in fact no such thing as absolute morality? For, if we were to get all our morals from the Bible (the only available source of “objective” Christian morality), then we’d still be stoning people to death, treating our slaves well, subjugating women, or (if you’re a Muslim), killing people who are apostate.

In fact, the very choice of which holy scripture to get “objective” morality from is entirely subjective in itself!! Do you CHOOSE to follow the Qu’ran, or do you CHOOSE to follow the Bible? Subjective choices all the way, my dear!

In fact, in the West, our nominally cultural Christian morality *is* subjective anyway, since we subjectively cherry-pick the nice parts of the Bible with which we personally agree, and subjectively choose to ignore those with which we don’t.

Can you not understand this??

Also, did anyone notice how reluctant Steve Fielding was to tell us how old he thought the Earth was? Clearly he thinks it’s less than 10,000 years old, but seemed embarrassed to state this publicly.

Also, Senator Fieldinng is an outright LIAR when he says he’s no problem with “the gays”, since in any interview he’s given previously on the subject, he’s made it quite clear that homosexuality is on par with bestiality, and is a perversion.

I’m fine with him having his own vile opinions, but what gets me is the hypocrisy of this guy to claim to have “no problem” with homosexuality on last night’s program, when we KNOW this isn’t the case at all!.

Hi James, thanks for joining the conversation. If we take God out of the picture, on what grounds do we establish morality?

Sorry, I think Dawkins totally nailed home the point about absolute morality.

I think it says more about YOU as a christian person if you think just because we dont have an iron age book with skewed, superseded moralistic rantings (as pointed out, the nastier of which most modern christians choose to ignore – so much for ‘absolute’) dictating what we should do that we’re all somehow going to become moral anarchists and killing our grandmothers.

And while it can be said that many christians have very little understanding on what atheism actually is/isnt (its not a religion!) Dawkins and co know a GREAT deal about the bible. In great detail…

Hi Jay, a similiar question for you – how do you decide what is right or wrong? What is the thought process for establishing this criteria (in how you relate to others, and how they relate to you)?

Hi Steven,

RE: “Hi James, thanks for joining the conversation. If we take God out of the picture, on what grounds do we establish morality?”

Well so many ways to answer this, let’s see…

1. Even if you leave God IN the picture, on what grounds do you establish what is moral and what isn’t? For instance, is it moral, for example, to keep slaves, even though (even in the New Testament!) we’re told the practice is ok as long as they’re treated well? If you decide that isn’t moral (but still believe in God), on what basis are you saying your morality is “absolute” at all if it changes with the times?

2. Ever heard of “empathy”? I don’t believe in God, yet I believe I have a higher morality than any Christian. Christians are moral to the extent that they have to be told what to do, with the ever-looming threat of Hell if you’re disobedient. Christians are in no position to question WHY something is moral or not (that’s not your job, after all… it’s moral because God says it is, right?!) Whereas I, a highly empathic creature, do what is right for the sake of it, not because I’m told to under threat of punishment.

Further, if God appeared tomorrow and told you to do something wicked for which there ARE precedents (like kill your son, or kill the children of a warring tribe, for instance), then you’d be compelled to do it without question, no matter whether you thought it was a good thing or not.

3. The “Golden Rule” (do unto others, etc.) was a basic moral guideline WAY before Jesus was even heard of. It seems to me to be a good basis for morality, and indeed, all the bits of the Bible that Christians cherry-pick their morality from seems to be in accord with this as well.

To my knowledge, the Buddha wasn’t a Christian, yet he had a lot of the same things to say about morality that Jesus did. Are you suggesting that what the Buddha taught was not correct until we had Jesus to come along and say the same things?

How’s that for a start?

To atheists commenting (hi!), can I ask: how do you find meaning in a world where “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”?

If you say being happy, friends, family etc etc… isn’t this just the cruel joke the universe is playing on you — that the happy neurotransmitters *feel* like something meaningful, but actually add up to nothing? Isn’t nihilism the logical, consistent conclusion in this case?

That said, I believe there’s a coming scientific reformation to Christianity eventually, maybe it’ll take a few decades but evolution & natural selection are so profound we’re past a point where we can just fall back on centuries-old orthodoxy without question. I discuss it a bit here: http://mightychurch.com/forums/viewthread/230/P25/#3802

@Steven Kryger

Furthermore…!

4. Are you saying your faith in God is the ONLY thing that makes you act morally?

Let’s imagine that tomorrow, some evidence if found that absolutely proves God does not exist (a hypothetical, ok?) In that case, if you were to KNOW there is no God, would you start to act immorally? Would you cheat and lie and steal? Would you stone naughty children to death?

I don’t think so, do you? So as you can see, the little book of Christian rules is NOT what’s keeping you on the straight and narrow, now is it? I think you should give yourself more credit than you are.

@ Luke Stevens 09. Mar, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

RE: “To atheists commenting (hi!), can I ask: how do you find meaning in a world where “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”? ”

Isn’t life amazing? I often think religion is for the feeble-minded who can’t find any satisfaction in the amazing gift of existence they’ve been given, and desperately hope for something more. Or maybe it’s for those who are fearful of the big scary universe in which they find themselves, and desperately cling to religion and the big powerful “sky daddy” as one would cling to a life preserver if floating in the Atlantic ocean after a shipwreck.

Further, I might ask Christians how do you find meaning being the playthings of a demanding celestial dictator whose true motives you can only guess at? Why do you find ANY meaning in life if it’s all just one big waiting room for the hereafter? Why not just off yourselves now and get an express ticket to heaven where, apparently, the REAL fun begins!

Here’s a quote from Douglas Adams which sums up my opinion of people who ask questions such as yours, Luke…

“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

Enjoy what you’ve got instead of hoping there’s got to be something more, my friend!

Yes, James, we’ve all heard Hitchens quips But you haven’t answered my question — blind hedonism seems as bad as blind faith to my mind. Is that all atheism offers? ‘Enjoy what you have and don’t think too hard about it’? That seems rather contradictory from an atheist point of view — surely those with such strong minds with no fear of the big bad universe can look it in the eye and deduce that this is all pointless; a cruel joke where our senses delude us for long enough to pass our genes on and that’s it.

In light of such ultimate pointlessness and futility hedonism may well seem like a better choice than nihilism, but really in your world that’s all there is, isn’t there? The choice to maximize your happy hormones as much as possible for as long as possible while the cruel joke runs its course, and self-awareness is meaningless beyond its usefulness in helping as pass our genes on.

It makes me wonder — who really is the feeble minded if you must resort to hedonism and blind wonder in nothingness rather than face up to nihilism for what it is?

I’m going to have a crack at countering some things that James suggested…

James you say that the Bible is, as you put it, “a little book of Christian rules”. Which kind of makes me wonder if you’ve read it. I’m really not trying to be facetious, but so many of Jesus’ words are the exact opposite of rules: such as “I have come to fulfil the law” “I come not to condemn” “I come so that you may have life, and have it to the full” etc etc. The OT is indeed what gave us the 10 commandments, (including the so-called ‘golden rule’), however it also shows that no one could fulfil them correctly – hence the need for Jesus and his fulfilment of the law in the NT.

Which makes the Bible so much better than a Rule book – in fact it is the opposite. It is the Grace book. Which is why I also have to question the below:

“Christians are moral to the extent that they have to be told what to do, with the ever-looming threat of Hell if you’re disobedient. Christians are in no position to question WHY something is moral or not (that’s not your job, after all… it’s moral because God says it is, right?!)”

Christians need not fear Hell for any reason, whether they have lived by ‘the rules’ or not – because we know that we are saved only by the grace of a gracious God. What we do has nothing to do with it.

As for questioning the morals or teaching or authenticity of the Bible – I would hope that any person who claims to be a Christian and believe the Bible has questioned it first. I would hope that those who have made such a decision, have used the exact same methods of questioning and testing and weighing up that anyone else would – but we believe that the truth has stood firm. (Lee Strobel has written some excellent books on this.)

I also highly doubt that any Christian sees themself as a ‘plaything’ of a celestial dictator. But by all means, do ask some of them!

I would also answer Douglas Adams (whose books I love, by the way – shame about the theology) in this way: seeing the garden as beautiful is just more proof that a beautiful mind is behind it.

@Luke Stevens:

>> “Yes, James, we’ve all heard Hitchens quips ”

Hitchens quip?? Are you referring to the two words “celestial dictator” amongst my 3 or so paragraphs? By the way, deflecting the point by referring to it as a “quip” is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? In what way is god NOT a celestial dictator? It’s and entirely accurate description, but entirely beside the point anyway. You didn’t answer MY question about how YOU find meaning by being a mere plaything of God. You seem to think it’s “meaningful” to look forward to an infinity of worshipping said entity in the afterlife!! Doesn’t sound very meaningful to me (sounds like hell, in fact!). Also, I expect you’d be the sort of person who, after the first billion years in Heaven, would be asking “Is this all there is? Is there no more meaning than this?”

>> “But you haven’t answered my question — blind hedonism seems as bad as blind faith to my mind. Is that all atheism offers? ‘Enjoy what you have and don’t think too hard about it’?

I have answered your question. The fact you say “don’t think too hard about it” shows you’ve missed the point entirely, and you would seem to fall into the “narrow minded” category of people I listed who are unable to find meaning for themselves, requiring it to be handed to them from on high. Such a pitious waste of human faculties, IMO. One wonders why you bother going on living if you can’t work out any meaning for yourself, and have to rely on scraps thrown to you from above!

>> “That seems rather contradictory from an atheist point of view — surely those with such strong minds with no fear of the big bad universe can look it in the eye and deduce that this is all pointless; a cruel joke where our senses delude us for long enough to pass our genes on and that’s it.”

Again, you’re missing something that I presume most atheists such as myself have: the ability to appreciate what I’ve got here and now, and find MY OWN meaning in it.

You’re mixing up the statement of Dawkins’, where he says the universe is “indifferent”, and taking it to mean (incorrectly) that the universe is a horrible place to be. Quite the contrary, my friend! It is AMAZING that out of such a place something so wondrous as the human mind has evolved (excuse the term!), which has the ability to apprehend the beauty and majesty of the universe as we find it.

That ALONE is enough to inspire awe in me. You, on the other hand, are apparently not satisfied with that and demand more and more… you (selfishly) want to live on for eternity in the company of what you imagine to be the most powerful force in the Universe in some sort of nebulous hereafter. Talk about ungrateful!!!

>> “In light of such ultimate pointlessness and futility”

Incorrect assumption, as I said above. YOU think life it futile and pointless without sky daddy… My mind is able to find meaning and beauty in the here and now, without having to make up some fairy land that awaits in the hereafter. You’d do well to remember that you’re mistaking atheism for nihilism. They are two separate things entirely!

>> “hedonism may well seem like a better choice than nihilism, but really in your world that’s all there is, isn’t there? The choice to maximize your happy hormones as much as possible for as long as possible while the cruel joke runs its course, and self-awareness is meaningless beyond its usefulness in helping as pass our genes on.”

No. As I said, that is a very limited view of life you seem to have. Ie. “it’s either God or futility”. No in-betweens with you, eh? On that, what exactly is it about the thought of eternally worshipping God that makes you so happy? To me, THAT sounds like a fate worse than death. The utter futility of an infinity of time spent worshipping a creature who made you with the express purpose of worshipping it for eternity. It is meaningless beyond meaningless… a horrible torture and a mockery of existence.

>> “It makes me wonder — who really is the feeble minded if you must resort to hedonism and blind wonder in nothingness rather than face up to nihilism for what it is?”

Oh, so many assumptions that are wrong in that sentence, I can see why an atheist world-views alarms you so, poor dear!!

Who said anything about hedonism? That is YOUR assumption that in a life without God, the only purpose is to pleasure oneself? That is narrow minded, my friend, and shows an inordinate lack of spirit and self-worth.

Finally, please tell me what is so wonderful about being cuddled by sky daddy for eternity that gives you “meaning” to your life? Surely if you’re just a plaything of some creator, that means your life is worth LESS!?

Also, you did not answer MY question: If this life is merely the waiting room for the great hereafter, then by what right do YOU say you find any solace in living at all? Surely you must just be ACHING to die and with with daddy for ever, no?

@Luke Stevens,

After posting my last rant, I re-read your post and something has struck me….

It seems that Christians are not satisfied unless they have neat little answers to all of life’s questions:

>> Luke wrote: “In light of such ultimate pointlessness and futility hedonism may well seem like a better choice than nihilism, but really in your world that’s all there is, isn’t there?”

You seem to be saying, “If I didn’t have God in my life, then my life must be pointless”

This presupposes two things:
1. Why SHOULD there be a prescribed “point” to anything? Not everything has a point or a reason, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, Luke. It’s very binary thinking of yours: I need a purpose, God gives me a purpose, therefore I need God. Can you spot the flaw in that logic?

2. Even if there is a “point” to everything, what makes you think you should have to know what it is?? Christian reasoning says: We must know how the Universe was created; God is a possible explanation, and there are no others, therefore I will believe God created the universe.

Christian minds don’t like a mystery, so in the absence of a “satisfying” answer, will make up any old story that seems to fit the facts and cling to it ’til death.

I, on the other hand, realise there are questions that will never be answered (in my lifetime, or possibly ever) but I can accept that. It doesn’t compel me to cling to any old hogwash that is a pseudo-sensical explanation, just to give me some solace.

Try broadening your mind, Luke, and embrace the mysteries of life!

@Nicole

Hi Nicole!

>> I’m going to have a crack at countering some things that James suggested…

Great!

>> James you say that the Bible is, as you put it, “a little book of Christian rules”. Which kind of makes me wonder if you’ve read it. I’m really not trying to be facetious, but so many of Jesus’ words are the exact opposite of rules: such as “I have come to fulfil the law” “I come not to condemn” “I come so that you may have life, and have it to the full” etc etc. The OT is indeed what gave us the 10 commandments, (including the so-called ‘golden rule’), however it also shows that no one could fulfil them correctly – hence the need for Jesus and his fulfilment of the law in the NT.

Well so many flaws and so little time, so I’ll just pick one or two, ok?

1. My response was to the question “if there is no notion of God, whence comes my morality”. I have read the Bible, several times in fact. It is filled to the brim with rules, EVEN the New Testament would you believe? I suspect you’re looking at it through rose-tinted glasses because (even though it does contain more than rules as you say ( such as the beautiful psalms and some lovely oratory by Jesus), it is essentially the ONLY source by which you can get your “absolute” moral Christian guidelines, which was pertinent to the question.

If you say the Bible is not a book of rules, then from what source do you get the rules for behaving morally, Nicole?

>> “Christians need not fear Hell for any reason, whether they have lived by ‘the rules’ or not – because we know that we are saved only by the grace of a gracious God. What we do has nothing to do with it.”

What you do has nothing to do with it? Oh, so the 10 commandments are out are they? Did you decide that subjectively by yourself, Nicole?

>> As for questioning the morals or teaching or authenticity of the Bible – I would hope that any person who claims to be a Christian and believe the Bible has questioned it first. _____I would hope that those who have made such a decision, have used the exact same methods of questioning and testing and weighing up that anyone else would.____

Thankyou very much. You’ve just admitted that morality is a subjective choice… Decisions to be made, questioned, tested and weighed up.

Hardly “Objective” if all of that decision-making has to go on in order to derive the correct answer. You’ve just made my point for me, thanks Nicole.

>> “I also highly doubt that any Christian sees themself as a ‘plaything’ of a celestial dictator. But by all means, do ask some of them!”

Are at the mercy of the Creator, or are you superior to Him? If the former, then like it or not, no matter how distasteful it sounds to you, you are BY DEFINITION a “plaything”.

>> I would also answer Douglas Adams (whose books I love, by the way – shame about the theology) in this way: seeing the garden as beautiful is just more proof that a beautiful mind is behind it.

Be careful with your use of the word “proof”. It SEEMS to you that there must be a more beautiful mind behind it, (there may well be, for all I know!) but appearances are certainly not PROOF. You’d do well to remember that difference.

Hi James,

I don’t think its surprising that there is commonality in our morality because the same God created us all, and within each of us is a knowledge of good and evil. It’s not that I listen to God and get my morality, and you make yours up as you go along – the same God created us both, and within us (as image bearers of God) is the capacity to choose to do good or evil.

Similarly, our empathy for others stems from the fact that we are made in God’s image, and God loves his creation, including you and me. Empathy can’t be explained as an evolutionary trait, because if we are all fighting for our existence, empathy would be a weakness – our survival must be pursued about all else. Empathy would be a hindrance to our survival.

The problem with humanity since the very beginning has been our decision to ignore God, and run our lives according to what pleases us. Morality is too often determined by what is convenient to me, not necessarily what is best for the other person. Although, how good would our world be if we always did what was best by others?!

On a different note, I’m not sure that when someone is superior to you that that makes you their ‘plaything’ – are you the plaything of your boss? Of your parents? Of the police? As our creator, God has the right to show us how we ought to live in his world, but at no point in the Bible are people treated as playthings.

I find meaning by trying to better myself and the conditions of this current life, for both myself, and the rest of humanity where possible, in what way we can.

How can the universe play a “cruel joke” on you when it has no purpose and nothing but pitiless indifference? If i was to feel the universe was playing a cruel joke on myself, then would that not infer that the universe had some hidden malice which goes against the whole idea of “no purpose, no evil”?

Just a thought!

@Steven Kryger

>> “I don’t think its surprising that there is commonality in our morality because the same God created us all, and within each of us is a knowledge of good and evil. It’s not that I listen to God and get my morality, and you make yours up as you go along – the same God created us both, and within us (as image bearers of God) is the capacity to choose to do good or evil.”

Ah yes, I was wondering when this old argument would come out. So morality is in us because God made us that way, eh? hehehe

Well, in that case the answer to your original question (“how do you decide what is right or wrong? What is the thought process for establishing this criteria?”) is simple…

** I have knowledge of right and wrong within me, as you have just agreed! **

Now, whether God put it there, or whether we evolved that was is an entirely DIFFERENT discussion. Since you are the one claiming God exists, the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that this is in fact true. However, despite 2000 years of concerted effort, there has been absolutely none forthcoming.

Further, since, as you agree, since knowledge of right and wrong is within every one of use, do we really need the teachings of Christianity to determine morality? Surely if we’re all made from the same stuff, then a buddhist, and atheist, a muslim or a wiccan ALL HAVE THE SAME CAPACITY to determine what is moral and what isn’t.

>> “Similarly, our empathy for others stems from the fact that we are made in God’s image, and God loves his creation, including you and me.

Again, that remains to be proven. You may beleive it, but I don’t. So there we are.

>> “Empathy can’t be explained as an evolutionary trait”

Simply wrong. I suggest you read up a bit more on the topic before making assumptions such as this. It’s a bit more complicated that you think.

>> because if we are all fighting for our existence, empathy would be a weakness – our survival must be pursued about all else. Empathy would be a hindrance to our survival.

There is so much evidence that empathy IS evolutionary, I can only suggest you read more, but in brief, existing in clans or societies in which people can co-operate is a beneficial survival trait. Empathy increases cooperation – it is hardly a hindrance to our survival! Imagine if we went out and killed everyone we met… do you think society would survive for long if we had no empathy? Think about it!

>> The problem with humanity since the very beginning has been our decision to ignore God

Simply wrong again. Christianity is only 2000 years old… hardly “the beginning”!

>> and run our lives according to what pleases us.

Does it please you to be a Christian? Then you are running your life according to what pleases YOU!

>> Morality is too often determined by what is convenient to me, not necessarily what is best for the other person. Although, how good would our world be if we always did what was best by others?!

We usually do do what is best for others, because it is also beneficial for ourselves. As I said before, i suggest you read a bit more about the evolutionary benefits of empathy and cooperation.

>> On a different note, I’m not sure that when someone is superior to you that that makes you their ‘plaything’ – are you the plaything of your boss? Of your parents? Of the police? As our creator, God has the right to show us how we ought to live in his world, but at no point in the Bible are people treated as playthings.

No comment, but I would just say that my boss did not create me with the purpose of worshipping him, and the possibility of punishing me for eternity with torture if I don’t love him.

@Steven (as well…)

This conversation is fracturing, and I’m getting a bit snarky (forgive me, it’s just my way), but I would also like to throw this into the mix if I may…

>> Steven “”I don’t think its surprising that there is commonality in our morality because the same God created us all, and within each of us is a knowledge of good and evil. It’s not that I listen to God and get my morality, and you make yours up as you go along – the same God created us both, and within us (as image bearers of God) is the capacity to choose to do good or evil.”

In fact, if you’ve studied your bible well, you’d know that when God created us in his image, he DID NOT include the capacity to know right from wrong. In fact, it was only by Adam & Eve eating the FORBIDDEN fruit of knowledge of good & evil did we acquire this ability. God went out of his way to ensure that we DIDN’T know right from wrong, if you’ll recall.

The funny thing is though, if Adam & Eve didn’t have the capacity to know right from wrong _before_ eating that blasted fruit, then why did they get punished for disobeying God, if they didn’t understand right and wrong?

Hmmm……??

Hi James,

you’re not in Sydney by any chance are you? Would you be interested in meeting up to continue the discussion?

I’ve had similar discussions to this online before, and the capacity to reply to all of them in a meaningful way just isn’t possible. I’m reminded of this again. So many points are raised, and before one is fully discussed, another point is raised. It’s hard (for me at least – perhaps I’m a bit slow!) to keep up!

If you’re in Sydney, let’s meet up for a coffee to continue the discussion.

Hi James, you’ll have to forgive me for harping on this point, but I really want to zero in on it because I think it’s the crux of atheism v theism (and theism is open to far more than your strawman, but let’s leave that be for now).

You say: “[I have] the ability to appreciate what I’ve got here and now, and find MY OWN meaning in it.”

Sure — we all do. But let’s dissect this — what exactly does it mean? Your ‘own meaning’ is just an illusion your brain persuades itself of… that’s it. There’s nothing more. Just a temporary illusion like jangling keys in front of a baby, which is enough to keep it amused for a short period of time.

Statements like “It is AMAZING that out of such a place something so wondrous as the human mind has evolved (excuse the term!), which has the ability to apprehend the beauty and majesty of the universe as we find it” are true in my world view, but not yours. In yours it’s a cruel joke — the universe evolved self-awareness so it could see just how entirely pointless the whole exercise is. That’s what atheists should own up to, and to be fair, some do. Why don’t you?

Appeals to the self-evident amazingness of our universe are arguments of my world view, not yours.

To believe in anything other than nihilism from your world view is just to perpetuate the delusion of meaning — that’s the real delusion, the real tragedy. There is no such thing as “amazing” or “awe inspiring”, there’s just neurons which fire in response to stimulus and your brain deludes you into thinking it means something so you are more likely to pass on your genes.

That meaning and wonder are so self-evident should be a bit of a clue that there’s something more going on, don’t you think?

In my world view we are meant to be here, and I accept abiogenesis and evolution as incredible things that got us to where we are today. In my world view, things like self-awareness exist for a reason other than to be deluded by our own senses, and I can truly marvel at what we have and what we can see — that’s consistent.

But for you, it seems your world view fails the basic test of consistency. You can rant about the horrors of what you see in the bible/Christianity all you like (but like Nicolie I suggest it’s probably a good idea to see what Jesus actually said), but that’s neither here nor there. Christianity could be the worst thing ever, but that doesn’t change the fact that your own world view is fatally inconsistent — a delusion of meaning that stops you embracing the logical ends of atheism, and that’s nihilism, as past atheists well knew. It’s a shame the ‘new atheists’ don’t look to their ideological forefathers in this regard — it’s the argument they made, after all!

@Steven

Haha! You’re not trying to convert me now, are you!?

I’ll think about it, but honestly I think it’d be a waste of time for both of us.

I’ve heard ALL the arguments from your side, and quite frankly, none of them hold water. You always come back to circular reasoning, as you were beginning to when you started down the “man has ignored god since the beginning” path.

I don’t want to convert you, either (I doubt that I could since the Christian mind is impervious to logical argument – and even you would have to admit that religion has nothing to do with logic!)

It’s just I can’t let it go when I read such doozies as you’ve dropped here like “empathy isn’t beneficial to evolution”, or “without god there can be no morality”, etc..

I don’t begrudge you your beliefs if they give you comfort, I only suggest you quit with the blatent misinformation, and stick to “we can’t know anything for sure, but it sure makes us feel nice!”. THAT I can accept, and have no argument with at all.

Later!

@Chris, spot on! Yes, even the notion of a “cruel joke” is meaningless. That’s true nihilism.

As for bettering yourself and humanity, that’s certainly admirable, but what do we get at the end of the day? A slightly advanced species that’s inevitably wiped out in the blink of an eye. If we’re advanced or cavemen, what difference does it make? It was all for nought — we appeared briefly then disappeared forever, and the big, indifferent, pitiless universe rolls on all the same.

If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, I don’t know what would

@ LUKE

>> But for you, it seems your world view fails the basic test of consistency. You can rant about the horrors of what you see in the bible/Christianity all you like (but like Nicolie I suggest it’s probably a good idea to see what Jesus actually said), but that’s neither here nor there. Christianity could be the worst thing ever, but that doesn’t change the fact that your own world view is fatally inconsistent — a delusion of meaning that stops you embracing the logical ends of atheism, and that’s nihilism, as past atheists well knew. It’s a shame the ‘new atheists’ don’t look to their ideological forefathers in this regard — it’s the argument they made, after all!

No Luke, you’ve made another horrible assumption again.

I don’t have a world view in the sense that you do. I ADMIT I have no idea what is going on with the Universe, however, unlike you, I am not compelled to build a meaning – any meaning – in lieu of a myster.

Now, how is that different to nihilism? You argue nihilism is the logical extension of atheism and I can see quite why you say so. But again, you’ve made the binary distinction: It’s either god, or nihilism.

What about: It’s either god, or nihilism, or something else?

Just because I can never have an answer to the question “what is the somethign else” does not mean that I am compelled to latch onto a relgion for meaning. Why do you insist on having all the answers available to you? That’s a bit much to expect, isn’t it?

I’m in a hurry here, so I mayn’t be as cogent as I’d like, but I’ll give it a bit more thought and get back to you with a more reasoned response later.

Ciao!

@Luke:

“If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, I don’t know what would ”

So you admit you like Christianity because the thought of the alternative gives you a chill down your spine? So you are one of the “life preserver” theists, eh?

James, no worries, take your time.

I like Christianity because I believe the historical record of Jesus is accurate, otherwise I’d be agnostic.

And I don’t want to alarm you, but I think you just converted to agnosticism (the ‘unknowable something else’).

Hey all,

I didn’t catch the Q&A discussion last night, but I did catch this one. Its all go here! I don’t where to start (or if i even should, there has been lots said, and I don’t know where James finds the time (and since I have drafted this, even more posts have come in)- but hey its the Internet, the place for anonymous discussion behind computers that are each connected far far away).

If some [arbitrary] standard (because there are absolutely no absolutes) of morality is all that Christianity is assumed to be, then Christianity has been miss defined and reduced to something that is crippling. I have no doubt that James believes he has a higher morality than any Christian; in fact I have never met the guy and he is probably more moral than me. I am a hypocrite and I am proud (heck I also have a tiny blog- if that’s not narcissistic then I don’t know what is).

Christianity is about Christ doing all the work. He was the moral one- more moral than any Christian I know. It is because all Christians are immoral that they need help, after all, no one is perfect. It is only by Gods grace that Christians consider themselves saved, not because of some moral action they performed. Jesus came to save both the sinner and the pharisee (the religious guys of his own day).

A Christian moralists does act (or obey God) out of fear, hoping to be accepted by God, where as a Christian acts out of gratitude and desire to please and mimic Jesus. Both may look the same (and attend the same church) but their motivations are quite different, but we may not even be able to tell the difference. Does that even matter, or are morals only external things?

I don’t understand James frustration with Christians if morals are subjective. Is the only basis of our morals our empathy? My empathy wavers a lot and doesn’t really lead me to much action. Last week I didn’t spare a though for the Haiti people but I did think about the Chileans. Neither group I have sent money to. Is that immoral of me to not send money, or is it moral enough that I felt for a Chilean buddy who has family over there (and then not acted)? Am I moral enough to live up to a subjective standard of morality…? I guess it might depend on who’s subjectivity it is (and maybe what day it is as well).

If only we can know for sure…

Right I’m home now (but going out again shortly!)

@Luke,

1. Agnosticism, maybe, but atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism simply says I have no belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism is a statement about whether the existence of god is KNOWABLE or not. Now, I am a gnostic atheist as far as Christianity is concerned (ie. I am CERTAIN there is no Christian god). As to the existence of some other deistic identity or other phenomenon which caused our existence, I happily admit that I’m agnostic.

2. Coming back to your “chills down the spine” in the face of nihilism… that’s a completely different argument to the point which kicked off this dicussion (we were talking about whether atheists can be moral, originally).

Now, your admission that the thought of no god sends “chills down your spine” is in NO WAY an argument for god… it’s simply an argument from personal desire.

In other words, you’re saying “I can’t bear the thought that there isn’t a god, therefore there must be one”.

It’s akin to me buying a lottery ticket and saying “I can’t bear the thought that I’m not going to win a million dollars, therefore this lottery ticket MUST be a winning one!”

Do you see? Not an argument at all,really.

3. Now, even if there is a Christian god, why does that thought not send chills down your spine as well? Frankly, as I said before, I can imagine no worse fate than spending infinity worshipping a capricious deity such as Yahweh (not to mention the thought of enjoying myself in his presence knowing all those poor people were suffering below me in Hell, but no matter…)

What is so great about Christianity that DOESN’T ultimately involve pleasure for yourself? (Remember, us hedonistic atheists are fools to seek pleasure!).

4. : >> LUKE said “That meaning and wonder are so self-evident should be a bit of a clue that there’s something more going on, don’t you think?”

Why? I don’t see that at all. I don’t look at a picture of a snowflake and think “Gosh, it’s so pretty and detailed that the snow fairy must be a wonderful designer”. In the same way I don’t look at the universe and think “Gosh, the creator must be awesome!”

5. Finally, (I think I already said this) but you seem to be stuck in binary mode: It’s either the Christian God, or nothing! Can you not see past those two alternatives, and why must you pick one? Why not be satisfied with the answer that “there is no answer”? Again, I suspect personal desire for meaning (as well as indoctrination from childhood, perhaps – were you parents christian too, by any chance??) are forming your conclusions for you.

James,

1. Well, you can’t know there is no god, and know that knowing if there is a god is unknowable, if I can put it that way Rejecting the Christian God merely makes you a non-Christian (thought it sounds like you’re rejecting the ancient Jewish God, not Jesus, would you agree?). Your agnosticism about another deity is, I’m sorry to say, something Mr Dawkins & Hitchens would frown upon. The nu-Atheism creed is no evidence, no proof, no belief. Opening the door to some other phenomena of which you have no proof *other than* the apparent self-evident wonder of the world is a big no-no, I’m afraid. Again, you’re not being consistent to your professed atheism — that’s agnosticism, and Mr Dawkins and Mr Hitchens would be most displeased

2. Yes, I agree. It’s not an argument for God, it was an argument that you’re being inconsistent I can bare the thought — I don’t have to like it, though. That’s what I think is the big cop out in nu-Atheism — everything is utterly pointless, but don’t you dare admit it! Best have a smile on your face and say everything is wonderful! At least the previous big names in atheism could cop it
3. It’s not foolish to seek pleasure. It’s foolish to delude yourself from the pointlessness of the universe and our existence with pleasure. In that sense, if heaven in whatever form it takes is total pleasure, good for me! Why would you not choose that?

Now, there are legitimate beefs you could have with OT Yahweh, I have no problem admitting that, but so what? I’m not an OT Jew, I’m a Christian, and if the Christ in Christian was on the money when he was alive, I’m not particularly terrified of boredom in heaven. If you reject various interpretations of scripture, fine. There are many, many denominations as I’m sure you know — Christians have all kinds of views. Rejecting a particular view is hardly a knock down argument that defeats Christianity.

4. “Why? I don’t see that at all. I don’t look at a picture of a snowflake and think “Gosh, it’s so pretty and detailed that the snow fairy must be a wonderful designer”. In the same way I don’t look at the universe and think “Gosh, the creator must be awesome!””

Yes, neither do I. Again, we can happily agree that God isn’t handcrafting individual snow flakes as they fall from the sky To be consistent, what you should think is this: “Wow, my brain triggers happy chemicals when my eyes see a snowflake.” That’s it, that’s all you can say. There is no such thing as “pretty” — it’s merely a construct your brain uses to interpret incoming stimuli. What you should be asking is, why is my brain like this? Why has it evolved in this way? What is the point — is there something bigger going on, or is it all meaningless?

5. Yes, there is a binary decision to be made. Either life and our existence is meaningful, or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways as an atheist. Now, of course that doesn’t necessarily lead to a god, or Christian God, or whatever, but that’s not the question. The question is: do you accept life and our existence is meaningful, or are you going to be consistent with nu-Atheism and say it is not?

Can you accept that, “at bottom, [there is] no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”?

@&rew…

>> “I don’t understand James frustration with Christians if morals are subjective”

I have no problem with that ^. However, The original accusation leveled at atheism (on Q&A and repeated here) was:

” If we take God out of the picture, on what grounds do we establish morality?” .. “how do you decide what is right or wrong? ”

The manner in which this (perennial) question is asked suggests that without the “absolute morals” of Christianity, there would be no real morality, as everyone would just do what they feel like. In other words, we need the absolute morality of God in order to behave properly.

I am simply stating that that’s utter hogwash! Mainly, for the following reasons (I’ll summarize the discussion for you!)

1. There is no “absolute” morality, or if there is, we have to use subjective decision-making anyway to determine what god’s morals are. (First, you have to “choose” the particular religion, then the particular denomination, then cherry-pick the bits of the Bible we subjectively feel good with)

2. The bits of Christian morality that are apparently good overlap with the good bits of many other religions, and humanism. (The Golden Rule – not the exclusive domain of religion)

3. Christian morals change over time, so by definition CAN NOT be absolute. (Stoning children in or out? Eating shellfish in or out? Slavery in or out? Homosexuality in or out?)

4. Religion is not needed for morality, nor to explain morality; there is an evolutionary explanation for the sense of empathy which humans have.

5. God-given morality is not really “morality” per se, but merely following rules without question, under threat of torture for disobeying.

6. Christian morality is often wicked and evil (immoral, in fact). The oft-cited examples are slavery, subjugation of women, and the hypocrisy of putting to death people for various reasons despite the commandment “thou shalt not kill”.

In short, Christian morality is at best a complete mess, at worst a deadly dangerous preoccupation.

So, my frustration with subjective Christian morals ONLY comes into play when said christians claim Christianity is necessary to have morals, which they frequently do.

Does that help?

Further, you ask:

>>”Is the only basis of our morals our empathy?”

Well my question would then be: What else could it be? Is the only other basis of your morals the fear of punishment, or what? If so, then you’re not really moral at all, just acting to save your own skin.

Steven,

You purport that a significant proportion of Australians are ignorant of the Bible and by extension, Christianity.

How aware are you of atheism? of taoism? of shintoism? of jenguism? of any non-anglo/caucasian centric religion or domination?

Has there come a point in your life where you thought shintoism was just not for you and that Jesus and his mob trumps over the east?

My point is, it is ridiculuos for you to say suggest that non-believers have not met the “real” jesus when you and many like yourself probably have not explored every possible avenue on earth.

Hi Henry, it’s not ignorance that I find ridiculous. It’s ignorance that leads to people making up their minds, and then writing something off and criticizing it based on false information.

Of course I haven’t looked at every religion. But nor do I claim to be an expert on other religions to the extent that some atheists purport to be of the Bible.

After spending some time reflecting, I’ve concluded that this format for atheist/Christian debate really isn’t great. I’ve written my thoughts up here – http://www.communicatejesus.com/2010/03/why-ive-decided-online-religious-debate-is-a-bad-idea/.

Accordingly, I won’t be publishing any more atheist/Christian-related comments on this post.

Like Dawkins, I was appalled that people in the audience would find the story of Jesus’ sacrifice admirable. A lot of people may not understand why, but hopefully an explanation will give a little insight into why people opposed to penal substitution reacted the way we did.

Whilst the self-sacrifice aspect may seem admirable, we have to put it into context. Consider the following metaphor: ten criminals, convicted of crimes such as murder, rape, theft, robbery, perjury and the like, are standing at the hangman’s noose. A man in the crowd without any criminal wrongdoing feels for their plight and volunteers to take their place, pardoning the criminals, and letting them go free. The innocent man is then hung until dead.

The idea of penal substitution is wrong on many counts because:
- It is not moral to punish the innocent for the wrongs of others.
- Giving pardon does not absolve the wrongdoer’s responsibility for their own actions.
- Substitution and pardon would confer upon its beneficiaries an unlimited permission to sin.
It is not just to leave the wrongdoer unpunished.

I don’t think Dawkins was trying to get a cheap laugh regarding the crucifixion story; he just seemed genuinely baffled that people thought penal substitution (in the form of torture and execution) was logically acceptable. Hopefully that made sense.