Thanks Darrin, I do fully agree with your assessment of the debate and hope
people will use your post as a prescription for resolving things and moving
on. Debates can only ever end in frustration where two entirely different
things are being discussed.
I feel though with your final sentence you have somewhat misportrayed the
theistic position in this classic debate (though I understand you were
attempting to give Jim's view). Concepts of 'punishment' and
'disobedience' should logically have no bearing on Christian-theist
morality - we derive our morality (so the argument runs) by objective
reference to God's laws and God Himself. These things seem right to us -
we concur, and our morality is established. If it were based upon fear of
punishment then it would no longer be true morality, but rather something
based upon what someone else (God) thinks. True morality, of course, is
one's own intrinsic view of right and wrong.
For my own benefit, and as I feel a student on this list, I have reduced
the general argument to simple terms. This is not my summary of how the
debate has developed, but how I think a ficticious conversation on this
subject may develop. If there is anything fundamentally wrong with the
following then somebody please point it out to me.
Atheist: There's no God, morality has nothing to do with God.
Monotheist: Morality has everything to do with God. Moreover, your
own morality, if it isn't borrowed from a theistic worldview,
is subjective. You have no objective moral reference point
outside of mankind itself. If atheism is granted to be true,
one cannot even *prove* right and wrong!
Atheist: Where do you get off implying that your morals are better
than mine!? Your argument is flawed from the very beginning,
since 1) there is no God, and 2) yours and my morals are
essentially similar! Can you *prove* right and wrong to my
satisfaction? No!
Monotheist: I can prove right and wrong to my own satisfaction, since I
believe in God, and can refer all moral questions to Him as
the objective, transcendent moral standard - will you grant
me this?
Atheist: Yes of course, but now it's my turn! I can also prove right
and wrong to my own satisfaction, and since I don't believe
there is a God, I choose to make my reference point my own
personal feelings and observations, and to a lesser extent,
the thoughts and feelings of other people - you must grant
me this.
Monotheist: So your morality is not transcendent or objective is it?
Atheist: Well no, not particularly, but so what? Who says it has to
be, anyway? ...(laughing)...God?
Monotheist: Well how do atheists account for origins?
Atheist: Atheism has nothing to do with origins, though of course, if
we are consistent - we will support naturalistic evolution.
Monotheist: Are not atheists and naturalistic evolutionists alike, both
materialists? And what is the definition of materialism?
Atheist: That they are, and materialism is simply the belief that
nothing but matter exists.
Monotheist: Nothing? Just particles in collision, huh? Determinism.
Protons and electrons. One big meaningless chain reaction?
Atheist: Er... meaningless, yes. You see, there is no literal
'spirit' within the human body - that idea is pure nonsense,
and might I add, completely disproven by science. When we
think, the process occurring is analogous to the workings of
a computer - simply switches turning on and off as the neurons
constantly tick over.
Monotheist: The concepts of right and wrong cannot consistently exist in
what you acknowledge is a meaningless world. A certain
transcendent, objective moral standard is missing from your
worldview.
Atheist: Oh my God!
Monotheist: Correct.
Thanks,
Peter Grice
Prof. of Applied Silence
Ale University
(or some 22 y.o. uneducated &
unemployed guy from Australia)