Constructive critique of an argument I have against atheism

[JackVk]

I have a line of reasoning for not being an atheist. Granted, I’m not trying to start anything, I’m just looking for any holes in my logic. Here goes:

I believe that naturalism is incompatible with ideas such as love, justice, mercy, etc. If there is no God, and we are not made in His image and likeness, then what are we? If naturalism is true, then we are the refuse of the cosmos that was lucky enough to self-replicate, and nothing more. Therefore, we have no reason to believe we are anything special.

Objection 1: what if things like goodness and justice do exist in a naturalistic world because they are good for the survival of the species?
Reply: objectively, such things do not exist, since they are immaterial. Also, such things do NOT seem good for the survival of the species. Case-in-point, Genghis Khan, who has more living descendants than any other historical figure. He did not achieve that by love or justice, but by destroying any tribes he didn’t enslave. Anybody who isn’t under your control is a loose end and a potential competitor for scarce resources. It’s like Cersei Lannister says in Game of Thrones: “You win or you die, there is no middle ground”.

Dovetailing with this reply, Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the fathers of modern atheism, believed morality was just an invention of the weak to inhibit the strong. Horror novelist H.P. Lovecraft also believed this, and used it in stories such as “the Call of Cthulu”.

Objection 2: “it makes you look bad if religion is the only reason you have empathy.”

Reply: Precisely. What other reason is there? This is also why I don’t consider the Problem of Evil an adequate argument against the existence of God. If there is no God, then we should not be troubled by suffering. The presence of wars and tornadoes and kids dying of cancer is nothing but natural selection on a greater scale. If I’m not suffering, then there’s no reason for me to care. This argument SHOULD sound heartless, scary, and nihilistic, because that is my point exactly. Nihilism is atheism’s Siamese twin. Try to separate the two, they both bleed out and die.

Objection 3: “what about human acheivement? We have made amazing scientific progress?”

Reply: What about human achievement? Who cares? None of it matters. When we die, we become maggot food, and that’s all she wrote. Furthermore, the human race will one day either be extinct or supplanted, and that race will be destroyed once the universe disappears in the Big Crunch.

Your replies would be most helpful. Thank you.

 

[Oreoracle]

I think the easiest way to illustrate my criticism is by asking you some questions, Jack. Ready?

1. Suppose that we are indeed created by God. So what? Why should I care that I was created? Why should I care what my creator wants?
2. If, after we all have died, God decides to obliterate us all instead of granting us an eternal afterlife, would our existence have been meaningless?

 

[JackVk]

1. Because if God has created us, then it follows that we should give credit where it is due. To ignore our Creator is to essentially say that we created ourselves ex nihilo; not only an impossibility (nothing can bring itself into existence), but practically false, though it makes a good parody of Ayn Rand fanboys. Also, God is not just some super-human or a supreme being, but He is Being itself (yes, I know I’m quoting Aquinas here). To acknowledge God is to acknowledge things as they are.
2. I have to think about this one. My reply is forthcoming.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think the easiest way to illustrate my criticism is by asking you some questions, Jack. Ready?

1. Suppose that we are indeed created by God. So what? Why should I care that I was created? Why should I care what my creator wants?
2. If, after we all have died, God decides to obliterate us all instead of granting us an eternal afterlife, would our existence have been meaningless?

1. Why shouldn’t you care?
2. Yes. That is why God gives us immortality: to make it all worthwhile (meaningful).

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I have a line of reasoning for not being an atheist. Granted, I’m not trying to start anything, I’m just looking for any holes in my logic. Here goes:

I believe that naturalism is incompatible with ideas such as love, justice, mercy, etc. If there is no God, and we are not made in His image and likeness, then what are we? If naturalism is true, then we are the refuse of the cosmos that was lucky enough to self-replicate, and nothing more. Therefore, we have no reason to believe we are anything special.

That you believe love, justice, etc. are incompatible with naturalism does not make it so; you need to defend that idea.
The idea that we’re only the “refuse of the cosmos” ignores the fact that we are capable of being aware of our own existence and the existence of the external world, that we’re able to make sense of it and that we’re able to create values. If you don’t think that naturalism can explain these capabilities, fine, but you arguments go farther than assertions.
If you’re interested in seeing how a naturalist defends the existence of love, beauty, ethics, consciousness, abstract object, qualia, and a host of other things that you would probably say can’t exist under naturalist, I’d recommend reading Richard Carrier’s Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism.

Objection 1: what if things like goodness and justice do exist in a naturalistic world because they are good for the survival of the species?
Reply: objectively, such things do not exist, since they are immaterial. Also, such things do NOT seem good for the survival of the species. Case-in-point, Genghis Khan, who has more living descendants than any other historical figure. He did not achieve that by love or justice, but by destroying any tribes he didn’t enslave. Anybody who isn’t under your control is a loose end and a potential competitor for scarce resources. It’s like Cersei Lannister says in Game of Thrones: “You win or you die, there is no middle ground”.

Again, the idea that “such things don’t exist” under naturalism and that they are “immaterial” is something you need to argue for and not simply assert (if you’re actually interested in convincing anyone, of course).
As to the comment that “anybody who isn’t under your control is a loose and a potential competitor for scarce resources,” that is a bigger consideration when resources are actually scarce. And resources tend to be scarcer when you don’t have a large society working cooperatively for each other’s benefit. Those who play nice with others, who value things like love and justice, have a wider base of people to cooperate with and share resources. So, even if “win or die” is a rule, you can win by playing well with other just as (or even more) effectively than by chopping off heads.

Dovetailing with this reply, Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the fathers of modern atheism, believed morality was just an invention of the weak to inhibit the strong. Horror novelist H.P. Lovecraft also believed this, and used it in stories such as “the Call of Cthulu”.

That they believed this might be a fun fact, but you need to explain why you think contemporary atheists are obligated to agree with them.

Objection 2: “it makes you look bad if religion is the only reason you have empathy.”

Reply: Precisely. What other reason is there? This is also why I don’t consider the Problem of Evil an adequate argument against the existence of God. If there is no God, then we should not be troubled by suffering. The presence of wars and tornadoes and kids dying of cancer is nothing but natural selection on a greater scale. If I’m not suffering, then there’s no reason for me to care. This argument SHOULD sound heartless, scary, and nihilistic, because that is my point exactly. Nihilism is atheism’s Siamese twin. Try to separate the two, they both bleed out and die.

Funny. You seem to think that we should agree with Nietzsche, then you say that we should all be nihilists.
There are naturalistic theories of ethics. Check out Richard Carrier’s Goal Theory, which he outlines in the book I recommended. Or check out Dan Fincke’s Empowerment Ethics, which he discusses on his blog, Camels With Hammers. Heck, if you want to get even more basic and more general, give James Rachel’s short book The Elements of Moral Philosophy a read and note how many ethical theories don’t require a deity or anything supernatural.
There have been studies that show that non-human animals care about the suffering of others. Rats will go hungry if they realize that pressing a lever to dispense food will also deliver shocks to their cagemates. Monkeys show empathy to other monkeys who are suffering. I once watched a documentary about wolves where an injured deer fell away from the herd, only to have another deer return and stay with her all night to defend her against the wolves. If, in your view, nature cannot supply us with impulses to care about the suffering of others, how do you explain these instances?

Objection 3: “what about human acheivement? We have made amazing scientific progress?”

Reply: What about human achievement? Who cares? None of it matters. When we die, we become maggot food, and that’s all she wrote. Furthermore, the human race will one day either be extinct or supplanted, and that race will be destroyed once the universe disappears in the Big Crunch.

Do you really believe that something doesn’t matter unless it matters forever? Does the companionship of a loved one today mean nothing to you unless you also think that will matter just as much ten million years after the sun explodes?

 

[Oreoracle]

1. Because if God has created us, then it follows that we should give credit where it is due.

Giving credit for a feat is different than caring about that feat.

To ignore our Creator is to essentially say that we created ourselves ex nihilo; not only an impossibility (nothing can bring itself into existence), but practically false, though it makes a good parody of Ayn Rand fanboys.

I’m not sure what you mean. I assumed for the sake of argument that God created me. I gave him credit, and I haven’t ignored him. You haven’t addressed why I should care about this creation.

Also, God is not just some super-human or a supreme being, but He is Being itself (yes, I know I’m quoting Aquinas here). To acknowledge God is to acknowledge things as they are.

But why should I care about things as they are? I’m not denying that things are the way they are, but acknowledging something doesn’t entail caring about it.

1. Why shouldn’t you care?

Nice try, but I asked first. But it matters not. In light of your answer to (2), I can infer what your answer to (1) is.

1. Yes. That is why God gives us immortality: to make it all worthwhile (meaningful).

So your answer to (1) is really “You shouldn’t care about your creation per se. Rather, you should only care because God will keep you around.”

But this creates an interesting sort of paradox. By your own admission, your existence is only valuable because it will be eternal. If God were to erase you from existence tomorrow, none of your life would have mattered. Thus, at any particular time, your existence up to that point is worthless, because the value of your existence is tentative on you surviving “in the long run”.

Since you never actually reach “the long run”, any claim you make about your own value is pending. If I asked you whether your life is valuable, you can’t actually say it is right now, but rather “it will be valuable in the long run.”

And even if it has value right now, it’s only valuable in the sense that money from a check has value. You don’t actually have the value in your hand, you just have a guarantee that you’ll have it eventually.

 

[without]

I believe that naturalism is incompatible with ideas such as love, justice, mercy, etc.

You can “believe” whatever you want… it’s not going to convince anyone.

Dogs love… cats love… mother cats will sacrifice themselves to save their kittens from burning building for example. Indeed birds will protect their nests and most will mate for life, etc…

We are a communal animal, so justice is a core need for all of us to get along. Other communal species do this as well. If one of a group prairie dogs (or monkeys or mice or dolphins or elephants) steals or harms others in the group they are often excluded or even killed.

Mercy can been seen in all primates. It is another core need for a communal animal. Without it groups would never be able to cooperate.

It’s rather sad that these feelings and behaviors (all chemical based btw) are not recognized by Catholics as just normal behavior and instead used to shame people.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But this creates an interesting sort of paradox. By your own admission, your existence is only valuable because it will be eternal. If God were to erase you from existence tomorrow, none of your life would have mattered. Thus, at any particular time, your existence up to that point is worthless, because the value of your existence is tentative on you surviving “in the long run”.

This is a curiously illogical argument. I did say my life would not have meaning if I was not immortal. But that is because I have been assured of immortality. I have not been assured of being erased from existence upon my death. So my life has meaning both because it is immortal and because I am living it in the here and now.

Why do you create scenarios that you cannot even prove will happen … my being erased for example?

Why don’t you try creating a scenario whereby you decide how meaningful your life was when you get to the other side and find you are immortal. Would you still be saying, “Why should I care that I was created?”

Maybe you’ll be singing a jazzier tune?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do you really believe that something doesn’t matter unless it matters forever? Does the companionship of a loved one today mean nothing to you unless you also think that will matter just as much ten million years after the sun explodes?

Things that matter forever obviously matter more than things that don’t.

If you are convinced that love does not go on forever, you have to be really sad to leave this world.

When you believe things go on forever, the loves you have known in this world will go on forever. That is why they matter so much more when we have them in this world and know they are everlasting.

Joy to the world … the Lord will come.

 

[Oreoracle]

This is a curiously illogical argument. I did say my life would not have meaning if I was not immortal. But that is because I have been assured of immortality.

The English language is so bothersome at times. In particular, some ideas are expressed in the present tense when they should not be. “X is immortal” makes no semantic sense, because immortality cannot be realized in the present. In fact, it can never be realized at all–that’s the whole point of immortality.

So to say that your life is valuable because it is immortal is an abuse of grammar. It is more appropriate to say that your life is valuable because of what it will be “in the long run”. Which means that your life, much like a check, is only valuable because of a future assurance. In fact, it’s actually worse than a check, because God already seems to think that 1) your life is a gift, not something he owes you, and 2) not something you really deserve anyway.

So I suppose the most appropriate analogy is that your life is like money a kid’s parents promise to give him some indefinite amount of time from now.

As for why I asked the question at all, it was to ascertain why you think life is valuable. As I noted in the last post, your answer suggests that we aren’t valuable just because we’re created by God, but rather because we are eternal. This suggests that, if I didn’t have the assurance of immortality, I wouldn’t be obligated to listen to God at all.

 

[schaeffer]

Things that matter forever obviously matter more than things that don’t.

If you are convinced that love does not go on forever, you have to be really sad to leave this world.

When you believe things go on forever, the loves you have known in this world will go on forever. That is why they matter so much more when we have them in this world and know they are everlasting.

Joy to the world … the Lord will come.

While it’s clear you feel that things that last forever matter more, that doesn’t make it objectively true, or subjectively true for others.

Your saying that something is important to you, isn’t going to convince someone that it therefore must matter to them as well.

God and eternal life aren’t proven true because hey, if they are not, it will be so sad, so lets all agree to believe!

The universe is full of things and events, some make me happy, some make me sad how I feel about them has no bearing on how real they are.

Some people feel quite the opposite of you, sometimes the fact that something will NOT last forever imbues the thing or even with greater meaning and significance.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I believe that naturalism is incompatible with ideas such as love, justice, mercy, etc. If there is no God, and we are not made in His image and likeness, then what are we? If naturalism is true, then we are the refuse of the cosmos that was lucky enough to self-replicate, and nothing more. Therefore, we have no reason to believe we are anything special.

It means that any loves, justices, or mercies that we experience, we created by ourselves.

 

[Estevao]

You can “believe” whatever you want… it’s not going to convince anyone.

Dogs love… cats love… mother cats will sacrifice themselves to save their kittens from burning building for example. Indeed birds will protect their nests and most will mate for life, etc…

We are a communal animal, so justice is a core need for all of us to get along. Other communal species do this as well. If one of a group prairie dogs (or monkeys or mice or dolphins or elephants) steals or harms others in the group they are often excluded or even killed.

Mercy can been seen in all primates. It is another core need for a communal animal. Without it groups would never be able to cooperate.

It’s rather sad that these feelings and behaviors (all chemical based btw) are not recognized by Catholics as just normal behavior and instead used to shame people.

I watched a documentary once where a group of male sharks forcibly copulated with a female shark. Shame on us Catholics for making us feel shame over these normal behaviors that are just chemically based!

 

[Estevao]

That you believe love, justice, etc. are incompatible with naturalism does not make it so; you need to defend that idea.
The idea that we’re only the “refuse of the cosmos” ignores the fact that we are capable of being aware of our own existence and the existence of the external world, that we’re able to make sense of it and that we’re able to create values. If you don’t think that naturalism can explain these capabilities, fine, but you arguments go farther than assertions.
If you’re interested in seeing how a naturalist defends the existence of love, beauty, ethics, consciousness, abstract object, qualia, and a host of other things that you would probably say can’t exist under naturalist, I’d recommend reading Richard Carrier’s Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism.

Again, the idea that “such things don’t exist” under naturalism and that they are “immaterial” is something you need to argue for and not simply assert (if you’re actually interested in convincing anyone, of course).

As to the comment that “anybody who isn’t under your control is a loose and a potential competitor for scarce resources,” that is a bigger consideration when resources are actually scarce. And resources tend to be scarcer when you don’t have a large society working cooperatively for each other’s benefit. Those who play nice with others, who value things like love and justice, have a wider base of people to cooperate with and share resources. So, even if “win or die” is a rule, you can win by playing well with other just as (or even more) effectively than by chopping off heads.

I suppose resources would be even less scarce if we killed everybody who was handicapped or aged? Would it then become “good” to do these things?

That they believed this might be a fun fact, but you need to explain why you think contemporary atheists are obligated to agree with them.

Funny. You seem to think that we should agree with Nietzsche, then you say that we should all be nihilists.
There are naturalistic theories of ethics. Check out Richard Carrier’s Goal Theory, which he outlines in the book I recommended. Or check out Dan Fincke’s Empowerment Ethics, which he discusses on his blog, Camels With Hammers. Heck, if you want to get even more basic and more general, give James Rachel’s short book The Elements of Moral Philosophy a read and note how many ethical theories don’t require a deity or anything supernatural.

Just a thought experiment I’m going to propose:

If the Nazis had won world war II and had successfully slaughtered every Jew on the European landmass, and then had brainwashed everybody to believe that such an action was good because it freed up resources for greater cooperation between the Aryan race, and had removed a known enemy of the Aryan race. On what basis, on naturalism, then could we say that the Holocaust was “evil” (or would we?)

There have been studies that show that non-human animals care about the suffering of others. Rats will go hungry if they realize that pressing a lever to dispense food will also deliver shocks to their cagemates. Monkeys show empathy to other monkeys who are suffering. I once watched a documentary about wolves where an injured deer fell away from the herd, only to have another deer return and stay with her all night to defend her against the wolves. If, in your view, nature cannot supply us with impulses to care about the suffering of others, how do you explain these instances?

I will repeat again my experience seeing a group of male sharks forcibly copulate with a female shark, but seriously this time. How does this become “bad” on the naturalist ethic? What makes “rape” bad if sharks do it too, but “showing empathy” good if monkeys do it too? It seems to me that if your basis of ethics is what is helpful for survival, than there is really no basis for saying that anything is “good”, unless if you want to gut the meaning of “good” like how Mormonism calls itself “Christian” but believes that God the Father is just an exalted human being.

Also, if I may add to my above thought experiment concerning the Nazis, if it is good that an injured deer is protected by another deer, supposing that the Nazi worldview was true (either in reality or if they had brainwashed everybody), wouldn’t it also be “good” if the the injured German nation was protected by another deer, the Nazi party, from the wolves (The Jewish Bolshevists and western plutocrats)? Why is it good for the deer to protect her fellow deer but not for the wolves to get their meal?

Do you really believe that something doesn’t matter unless it matters forever? Does the companionship of a loved one today mean nothing to you unless you also think that will matter just as much ten million years after the sun explodes?

You know I would have to agree with you here, I don’t think that mere duration gives anything meaning. I could be marooned on an asteroid with a pill that makes me live forever, but I think I’d rather not have to live forever on an asteroid.

However, without God, everything is meaningless. On atheism, there is no objective purpose to human life, there is no difference between Father Damien and Dr. Josef Mengele, because both go back into the ground when they die, and in a few generations, it is possible that the effects (to which I won’t add any good or evil evaluation) will not be noticible. Without a God to mete out justice and to give us eternal bliss, mere duration of life doesn’t make a difference.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The English language is so bothersome at times. In particular, some ideas are expressed in the present tense when they should not be. “X is immortal” makes no semantic sense, because immortality cannot be realized in the present.

As for why I asked the question at all, it was to ascertain why you think life is valuable. As I noted in the last post, your answer suggests that we aren’t valuable just because we’re created by God, but rather because we are eternal. This suggests that, if I didn’t have the assurance of immortality, I wouldn’t be obligated to listen to God at all.

By this logic it makes no sense to say that the future exists because it "cannot be realized in the present. Do you really want to say that?

Yes, I agree with your next paragraph. If I didn’t have the assurance of immortality I would be living a life barely different from that of a pig. And, of course, pigs are not obligated to listen to God at all. Believing that God created me and gave me immortality means that life is more meaningful, not less meaningful, because I have more to be thankful for, and I than Him daily just for my present life as well as my future one.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

While it’s clear you feel that things that last forever matter more, that doesn’t make it objectively true, or subjectively true for others.

Your saying that something is important to you, isn’t going to convince someone that it therefore must matter to them as well.

Since you cannot know for a fact that you are not immortal, why is it more comforting to you, or even more rational to you, to believe that you are not immortal?

I certainly agree with your second sentence. Some people cannot be convinced. They have to discover things on their own. Just as I did when I was an atheist.

 

[Oreoracle]

By this logic it makes no sense to say that the future exists because it "cannot be realized in the present. Do you really want to say that?

To say that the future will exist makes more sense to me. Sometimes you might be able to get around this by embedding the future elsewhere in the sentence, as in “My future wife is alive now.” But if someone tried to argue that they know who their future wife is, I would ask for evidence, which they cannot provide until–surprise!–the future.

The point is that a statement whose truth is contingent on future events cannot be verified in the present unless it lends itself to deductive reasoning somehow, which enables timeless proofs.

Yes, I agree with your next paragraph. If I didn’t have the assurance of immortality I would be living a life barely different from that of a pig.

I am very sorry you feel that way. Atheists don’t have such a fragile sense of self-worth, it seems.

 

[JackVk]

You can “believe” whatever you want… it’s not going to convince anyone.

Dogs love… cats love… mother cats will sacrifice themselves to save their kittens from burning building for example. Indeed birds will protect their nests and most will mate for life, etc…

We are a communal animal, so justice is a core need for all of us to get along. Other communal species do this as well. If one of a group prairie dogs (or monkeys or mice or dolphins or elephants) steals or harms others in the group they are often excluded or even killed.

Mercy can been seen in all primates. It is another core need for a communal animal. Without it groups would never be able to cooperate.

It’s rather sad that these feelings and behaviors (all chemical based btw) are not recognized by Catholics as just normal behavior and instead used to shame people.

If it’s all just chemical, then why practice one over the other when neither what we perceive as virtue or vice is better? Then there is no such thing as good or bad, simply a difference in preference. If all good behavior is “normal” for us humans, then so is being a violent, self-centered misanthrope. This renders morality meaningless. No behavior is good or bad, it just is.

It also doesn’t answer the question: why survive and evolve in the first place? Who gives a flying fart? As I said earlier, you die, decay, and that’s the end of you. It’s as if you never existed in the first place.

 

[Oreoracle]

Also, Jack, I feel that the question “Why should we value our lives?” is neither here nor there. The point is that we do in fact value our lives with or without a belief in God. Whether you believe atheists have a “justifiable” morality or not, we do have our own moral codes. These observations show that we don’t need God to have a sense of worth, however arbitrary you feel that our sense of worth is. Of course, we feel that your sense of worth is arbitrary.

 

[JackVk]

Also, Jack, I feel that the question “Why should we value our lives?” is neither here nor there. The point is that we do in fact value our lives with or without a belief in God. Whether you believe atheists have a “justifiable” morality or not, we do have our own moral codes. These observations show that we don’t need God to have a sense of worth, however arbitrary you feel that our sense of worth is. Of course, we feel that your sense of worth is arbitrary.

Do we, as homo sapiens, have worth without being made in God’s image and likeness? If so, it could only come from our own merits, rendering severely retarded or disabled persons useless wastes of skin.

If we are made by God, however, it means that each human being is loved and cherished for their own sake. Each human exists to be loved by God and by others.

It is a godless universe, not one with God, that leads to an arbitrary abolition of man.

Also, I should bring up the idea of a moral code. If it’s not from God, then it comes from a human being. If it comes from something that is just another sack of meat on my level, then why should I obey it? Who are you to tell me what’s right and what’s wrong?