Eminem, I do not in any way argue against your personal faith and believes, but I wish to argue agains some of your reasoning and conclusions I think are invalid.
Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>
I'm sorry to disappoint you georgi, but atheism taken to its logical conclusion does indeed lead to an amoral worldview. Read the literature or surf the net. Theists and atheists both concur on this point. The existence of God provides the best explanation for objective moral values in the world, and atheism denies the existence of God and objective moral values.
</STRONG>
This conclusion is not correct. Not only is it disrespectful to atheists, it's also illogical to conclude that atheism leads to amorality. Please explain how you come to this conclusion?
Since you mention logics in your post and use this in your arguments, I assume you have some interested in logics. I'd like to point out a few illogics in your reasoning.
To me, it seems like you are either making a circular argument where moral by definition must be connected to objective absolute values, and objective values can only be connected to a god, or you draw the premature conclusion that objective values are necessary for a moral system. But, I shall not speculate further since it could also be a sematic issue:
what is your definition of moral?
If you, like me, use the standard definition of moral as an organised, structured system of beliefs and values that together form a network of standards by which we choose to live, act and evaluate ourselves and others, then, why should moral be depending on the existance of objective values, and/or the existance of a god.
Are you familiar with, or have read, moral philosophy? This is a vast subject, and writnings from at least the last 2500 years are preserved. Moral philosophy includes issues like the definition of moral, the definition of good and evil and whether those concepts are meaningful, as well as many different sets of moral codes. It includes both religious moral systems, for instance those presented by Thomas of Aquino and some Arabian writers I don't remember the names of, as well as non religious moral systems like humanism, utilism and existentialism. If you make yourself more familiar with the moral philosophy, you will see that there are many types of moral standards that does not rely on the existance of a god nor the idea of objective values.
<STRONG>
If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist - everything moral would be relative. Without God, there is no absolute good which imposes itself on our conscience. Morality will be seen as nothing more than a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth, and an aid to survival and reproduction.
</STRONG>
Firstly, it does not necessarily follow that objective moral values could not exist without a god. We can't rule out the possibility there are other absolute values, independent of transcendence. Have you read Plato, for instance? Kant? Or Hegel?
Secondly, let's say moral is an evolutionary function. Why does this automatically imply that it is less good than a moral inspired by a god? Homo sapiens sapiens is a group living species. Acting for the good of the group would be beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. You express a negative view of moral as an aid for survival of the individual and the species. Again, I must ask: what is your definition of moral, and what is the function of having a moral?
Take a look at the other species on this earth. No other species has a moral like man in the sense of having an abstract concept for their behavioural pattern, but: would you say any of these are doing less good and more evil than mankind?
<STRONG>
Friedrich Nietzsche, the great atheist of the last century who proclaimed the death of God, understood this all too well. "The end of Christianity," wrote Nietzsche, "means the advent of nihilism." Only the man who is able to live beyond good and evil will acquire mastery in the coming age of nihilism, which stands already at the door. I think the specter of Friedrich Nietzsche must haunt every atheist. For if there is no God, then why wouldn?t nihilism be true?
</STRONG>
I don't know whether it's the concept of nihilism or the general philosophy of Nietzsche you haven't understood fully if you think it to be so disastrous. Nietzsche is indeed one of the Westerns worlds most misunderstood philosophers, much because of his sister's editing of his writing after his death.
Now, if you are familiar with Nietzsche, you must now that his ideas of nihilism are preexistentialistic, just like his mentor Schopenhauer and Kirkegaard. You are right in your conclusion that nihilism means living beyond the idea of objective good and evil, but his philosophy is very much about man having to cope with the full responsibility for his own choices, without relying on authorities, divine or in the society. Relativism in moral is not the same thing as being amoralic or being morally corrupt or depraved.
<STRONG>
I don?t see any reason to think that, in the absence of God, human beings would have objective moral value.
</STRONG>
Again, why not? Please explain why you believe moral to be dependent on a god and on objective moral values.
<STRONG>
After all, if there is no God, what is so special about human beings? We're just accidental by-products of nature, which have evolved relatively recently on in infinitesimal speck of dust, lost somewhere in the heart of a hostile and mindless universe, and are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. And if push came to shove, I think you would agree with this. To say that objective moral values exist is to assert that statements of moral value like "Rape is wrong" are true independently of whether anyone believes them or not.
</STRONG>
Now, why do you view a godless the universe as hostile? Also, many species have evolved and become extinct on this earth. Perhaps this is the fate of mankind as well. I understand if this fate is unpleasant and even unacceptable to you, but I don't think it's relevant arguments in a moral discussion. I don't see an inherent connection between the possibility of man as extinct in the future and the need of a god for moral. It's a more metaphysic question.
So what you are saying is that moral can't exist unless humankind is "special", qualitatively different from all other life forms of this earth? How do you come to this conclusion?
I think you are simplifying difficult moral issues by
1. trying to divide acts is a simple black and white right and wrong
2. by believing there is an objective truth that is true to all, and drawing the premature conclusion that no objective moral values = no moral = amoral
Let me ask you how you would evaluate the following, real life situation:
A Bosnian man is in Serbian concentration camp. The guards give him the following order: Rape this other prisoner, or we will exectue you
and all the other 50 people here that comes from your village.
Given this choice, what is more wrong? And don't tell me this example is too extreme to be relevant, people have to make this kind of choices every now and then even if you and I are happy enough not to have to.
<STRONG>
But the fact is that objective values do exist, and we both know it. There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than there is to deny the objective reality of the physical world.
</STRONG>
Please argue for the point that it is a
fact that objective values exist. If something is a fact, like existance of gravity or existance of the world, it must be beyond all reasonable doubt that this fact can be shown to have reliability and validity across time, across culture and independently of the viewer.
Sorry for this long post, it's a bit difficult for me to discuss these issues in English!
Besides, atrocities are atrocities whether they are committed in the name of progress or religion. Yes, you say that the Bible cannot justify these things, but that doesn't mean that these things aren't done in the name of religion, unfortunately.</STRONG>
