INSIGHTS ON ATHEISM

[Carl]

The following is a typical formulation of the atheist position by an atheist of great intellectual repute. I am interested in starting a discussion of his views in whole or in part by anyone who is interested.

All I ask is that we not use the shotgun effect. Each sentence in the paragraph deserves commentary. It will be a cumbersome ordeal if we try to comment on several sentences at once.

The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events … He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible,any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, 1930

I will start by commenting briefly on the first sentence:

*The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events … *

Here Einstein assumes that there can be no order of Being outside the universe. Since he has already decided that there is no God, how can there be any violation of the universal principle of causality? The theist may answer that the One who created causality cannot possibly be subject to the law of his Creation. Miracles are possible because God can suspend the laws of nature at will. From the theistic point of view, there is nothing inconsistent with God’s suspension of natural law as a way of sending messages or bestowing gifts.

 

[Carl]

larryo

For an understanding of the atheistic mindset, I highly recommend Dr. Paul Vitz’s book, The Faith of the Fatherless.

Yes, I recommend Vitz’s book to all of my atheist friends. It turns the table on the argument often heard from them that religious people are psychological weaklings. Vitz himself was a fallen Catholic who had joined up with atheists until he began to suspect his own motives.

 

[Carl]

*He [Einstein] has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. *

Here Einstein deliberately misrepresents all religion as rooted in fear, when many religions (especially the Christian) are in fact rooted in hope. That aspects of fear enter the religious life is inevitable: mostly the fear of losing our souls. But this is a good fear, just as it is a good fear to step away from a precipice or roaring flames because we want to live.

The little use Einstein has for *social or moral religion * is puzzling. Social religion has historically kept people to a higher standard of social cohesion since the presence of religion in the lives of the Many makes possible a protective umbrella for the Few. We see this, for example, in the collective actions of the Church to help the sick, the poor, the lonely, and the imprisoned.
The little use for *moral religion * is equally puzzling. Why would Einstein see no supportive role for the contribution of religion to the development of morals when the evidence of such was all around him?

I propose that he did not see these connections simply because he did not want to see them.

 

[Nil_Desperandum]

**The little use Einstein has for *social or moral religion *is puzzling. Social religion has historically kept people to a higher standard of social cohesion since the presence of religion in the lives of the Many makes possible a protective umbrella for the Few.

It would seem apparent to me that any major split in societal structure has been because of religion, so I think your assertion that social cohesion has been historically kept together by social religion is false.
**
Chris

 

[Chris_W]

It would seem apparent to me that any major split in societal structure has been because of religion, so I think your assertion that social cohesion has been historically kept together by social religion is false.

Have to disagree with you there. Perhaps you are referring to a split in worldviews?.. to which I would ask you for proof that athiesm existed before theism.

But social cohesion, in the form of caring for the needy, a sense of community (from worshipping together), submission to authority, etc can indeed be attributed to religion. Atheism, as I think was pointed out early in this thread, is not well known for having organizations to feed the hungry, and the like. Nor do the atheists I know humbly submit themselves to authority. Nor do they frequently get together to talk about how to improve their sense of community through youth groups, summer camps, moms clubs, etc. All things that *cause * social cohesion.

 

[Nil_Desperandum]

Chris W:

Have to disagree with you there. Perhaps you are referring to a split in worldviews?.. to which I would ask you for proof that athiesm existed before theism.

But social cohesion, in the form of caring for the needy, a sense of community (from worshipping together), submission to authority, etc can indeed be attributed to religion. Atheism, as I think was pointed out early in this thread, is not well known for having organizations to feed the hungry, and the like. Nor do the atheists I know humbly submit themselves to authority. Nor do they frequently get together to talk about how to improve their sense of community through youth groups, summer camps, moms clubs, etc. All things that *cause *social cohesion.

Ahh, I understand your point now. My contention on social cohesion was that it would seem the major dissention in society has been CAUSED by one religious split or another. I am not a history buff, but the only example I can really come up with is the Pilgrims and the split from the Church of England, et cetera. Causing social cohesion to split.

However, from a societal aspect, of course they cause that type of cohesion. I haven’t specifically seen clubs and whatnot, but part of Atheism is that it lacks a central authority, or heirarchy. There is very little structure, and what structure there is, IMO, for the development our of ideas and to be social.

I don’t speak for all Atheism, however -just my personal experience.

Chris

 

[Monarchy]

*He [Einstein]
has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. *

Here Einstein deliberately misrepresents all religion as rooted in fear, when many religions (especially the Christian) are in fact rooted in hope. That aspects of fear enter the religious life is inevitable: mostly the fear of losing our souls. But this is a good fear, just as it is a good fear to step away from a precipice or roaring flames because we want to live.

So Why do I always hear the terms Fear of God, Fear of Hell, etc… from Xians? And what is Hell if not the ultimate fear tactic? Do as you’re told or you’ll Burn!!!

 

[Carl]

Back to Einstein:

A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible,any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes.

Here Einstein reveals his determinist bias. There is no freedom he can detect in the physical world. So, of course, there could not be any freedom in the world of spirit either. Therefore no one is responsible for anything either by way of punishment or reward.

Why then do we punish, and why do we reward?

One of the first lessons we learn in Genesis is that we do have free will. We are given a choice: to obey or to disobey. Having disobeyed, punishment follows.

The atheist is not exempt from this process. He goes to work so that he can get paid. He follows traffic rules so that he will not be punished. Why should the choices we make in our moral actions not connect with the ultimate reward or punishment of our immortal souls?

Einstein states another assumption without proof: that the actions of a human being are no more rewardable or punishable than the actions of an inanimate object.

That’s a stretch.

 

[Nil_Desperandum]

I’d say the stretch is that you can somehow justify eternal consequences for temporal actions.

 

[mkw]

I thank God for allowing me to be an Atheist for part of my life, (all being equal though, prefered to be a “cradle”). I come to the Catholic Christian faith with no preconceived ideas about Mary worship, idol worshipping etc… in my warped way of thinking, makes it all the more easier

 

[Carl]

MONARCHY

So Why do I always hear the terms Fear of God, Fear of Hell, etc… from Xians? And what is Hell if not the ultimate fear tactic? Do as you’re told or you’ll Burn!!!

Fear of God is not a cowering fear, such as you might think. It is more like the awe of the finite one in the prsence of Infinity. One is naturally overwhelmed by the greatness and power of God. Humility enters. This God asks obedience and we obey. Why is that irrational?

Is hell the ultimate fear tactic? I should think so. Exactly what hell is nobody seems to know. We are allowed to use our imaginations. It won’t be pretty. When the mother tells the son, “Wait till your father get’s home!” you can bet his imagination will heat up. Depending on the offense and the degree of remorse, the Father will act as he should.

Why should our heavenly Father be so different?

Besides, the hell that we are threatened with is not certain. Heaven is in the offing.

For the atheist, only nothingness is in the offing. This is the worst fear of all because there is no escape from that fear except the evasive tactic of one who whistles in the dark.

 

[Nil_Desperandum]

Carl:

Fear of God is not a cowering fear, such as you might think. It is more like the awe of the finite one in the prsence of Infinity. One is naturally overwhelmed by the greatness and power of God. Humility enters. This God asks obedience and we obey. Why is that irrational?

How is it that you, a mere mortal, have felt the awe of the infinite, without having been completely overwhelmed?

Why should our heavenly Father be so different?

My father actually came through the door.

For the atheist, only nothingness is in the offing. This is the worst fear of all because there is no escape from that fear except the evasive tactic of one who whistles in the dark.

Oddly enough, that is YOUR worst fear, because I do not fear nothingness. Therefore, your paintbrush has been made thinner.

Chris

 

[Carl]

I’d say the stretch is that you can somehow justify eternal consequences for temporal actions.

God is merciful and offers us mercy. If we refuse, it is we, not God, who call ourselves into eternal damnation.

Still looking for a loophole, aren’t you?

 

[Nil_Desperandum]

I’d say the stretch is that you can somehow justify eternal consequences for temporal actions.

God is merciful and offers us mercy. If we refuse, it is we, not God, who call ourselves into eternal damnation.

Still looking for a loophole, aren’t you?

You still haven’t told me how it is justifiable that a temporary situation can bring out eternal damnation, Carl. God hasn’t offered me anything, and that isn’t going to change.

I can just as easily tell you that you will spend your eternity with the Purple Oyster of Doom (that bastard!), simply because you didn’t give the Invisible Pink Unicorn the gratitude she demands by offering her a weekly meal of Ham and Pineapple Pizza every Tuesday.

How are you going to escape this eternal torture basking in Purple Glory? Her Hoofness has shown you the way - you need only do it, to win her Graces, PBUH.

Chris

 

[squirt]

Nil Desperandum:

I can just as easily tell you that you will spend your eternity with the Purple Oyster of Doom (that bastard!), simply because you didn’t give the Invisible Pink Unicorn the gratitude she demands by offering her a weekly meal of Ham and Pineapple Pizza every Tuesday.

Sure, you could tell me that, but I’d put zero probability on the possibility of that happening given that such warnings are coming from somebody who doesn’t even believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, and I’ve never sensed the presence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn …

 

[Nil_Desperandum]

squirt:

Sure, you could tell me that, but I’d put zero probability on the possibility of that happening given that such warnings are coming from somebody who doesn’t even believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, and I’ve never sensed the presence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn …

I’d put zero probability on the possibility of spending eternity in hell, given that such warning are coming from a finite being who claims to have sensed the presence of an infinite being, who is the source of this warning.

 

[Carl]

Back to Einstein:

Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

The charge against science is justified to the extent that many modern scientists and their devotees have sought to relegate to science the exclusive avenue to knowledge. This is transparent in the usual objection of atheists who claim to have scientific credentials. “I must have proof of God’s existence according to the laws of science or I am not obliged to believe.”

Preposterous.

“If we need an atheist for a debate, I’d go to the philosophy department - the physics department isn’t much use.” Robert Griffith, Otto Stern professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon University

---

Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

But if that is true, then men in this life would also have to be in a poor way “to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward.”

Isn’t this nonsense?

The only people I can think of who would not like to have to fear punishment, and who would most likely want to deny that punishment should even exist, are the very people who probably deserve it.

 

[Carl]

I’d put zero probability on the possibility of spending eternity in hell, given that such warning are coming from a finite being who claims to have sensed the presence of an infinite being, who is the source of this warning.

Yes, I recall playing those tedious head games when I was in your shoes.

 

[squirt]

Nil Desperandum:

I’d put zero probability on the possibility of spending eternity in hell, given that such warning are coming from a finite being who claims to have sensed the presence of an infinite being, who is the source of this warning.

I certainly hope you don’t think that I’m claiming that you will spend an eternity in Hell. Given Catholic doctrine, I strongly doubt that you qualify.

(Except for the eating babies part … maybe … )

 

[paul2]

Carl:

What you don’t seem to get is that if a thing is right, it is right from one generation to the next. If a thing is wrong, it’s wrong from one generation to the next. The rightness or wrongness of moral acts does not depend on the fancy of the current generation practicing them. You have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the liberal rot that morality is totally relative. That mentality is making a moral sewer of our culture. I don’t think you’ll be able to grasp that because I think you are very young and probably can’t see the moral perspective of the generations before you; nor can you see the decline in public and private morals over the last five decades.

Too bad.

Let’s think about a few morals that I feel you might consider to be “timeless.” Murder? Stealing? Both are allways immoral?

What is murder? The taking of someone’s life, right? There are countless examples of when it’s perfectly moral by today’s standards to take someone’s life. A police officer shooting an armed assailant, is one I can think of off the top of my head. What about the death penalty? That is morally acceptable by alot of people, and has been for many generations. It is only much recently that it has become some sort of a taboo.

Theivery? The entire repossession industry is based on stealing someone’s property. It’s morally acceptable to “steal” a car from the current owner, if he’s failed to maintain his side of the deal with his bank.

Now, I will aggree with you if you say that “it is allways and allways will be immoral to kill someone in cold blood.” My question is why do you take that and say that “it’s allways immoral to kill someone in cold blood because a god said so.” Quite frankly, if you would say that it would be ok to kill random people in cold blood if your God hadn’t mentioned anything about it, I’d be quite afraid of you.

Please give me some examples of the “moral liberal rot,” how our culture has turned into or is turning into a “moral sewer,” and a few examples of “decline in public or private morals.” Since you think i’m “very young” and won’t be able to grasp such complicated issues, maybe you can reveal them in a story along the lines of Dr Seuss.

From mkw

…
NO amount of talking by Christians would have gotten through to me. I just refused to listen.

By the grace of God, I happened to be attending my son’s baptist church one Sunday and felt such a “strong pull” coming from within me (anti-Catholic to beat all).

I now KNOW it was the Holy Spirit “grabbing” onto me (Praise God). I read Pascal’s Wager and found it to be a interesting challenge. I took it!..Between that, and massive amounts of reading and, I know, the Holy Spirit, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church this Easter Vigil

Good for you, i’m glad you’re happy. However, while growing up in a Catholic school, going to church 3 times a week, and attending sunday school, youth group, etc, never have i once felt any sort of “pull.” As an atheist, i’ve gone to church on occasions such as christmas with the family, and i’ve picked my sister up from her youth group meetings many times (The arms of God reach into the parking lot, right?) and i’ve never felt any sort of “pull.”

When you finished reading Pascal’s Wager, why did you decide to become a Catholic and not a Muslem? I’d hate to have you burn in the Muslem version of hell. That’s the failure of Pascal’s Wager, i’m afraid, you can apply it to any relegion.

PS: Why as an atheist did you refuse to listen? Do you listen to opposing views now as a Catholic?

From S.J.

I am having a hard time understanding why an atheist would be motivated by anything other than self interest? If this is all there is, why not grab all you can for yourself? If there is no consequence (a God of justice) then why not act at all times and in every way to benefit yourself? I am not talking about law breaking - I mean acting within the bounds of societal laws with your own self interest in mind.

If I were to help you with your yard work, I would be acting in self interest. Next time I needed help with my yard work, I would ask you for help and would more than likely recieve it. Why would I volunteer at a soup kitchen? It makes me feel better about myself. I get that nice warm feeling inside from doing something nice. Same reason i eat chocolate. That nice warm feeling.