I have friends who are both religious and atheist. Its free will, everyone gets to choose.
Of those who are atheist, some are non religious and some are anti-religious. Yep some are a bit indifferent but some get quite anxious about anyone having any religious worldview leanings.
The angle that routinely pops up is a critical assessment of God. How is it he can allow all the pain & suffering in the world, the disease, the death, the wars, the murders, rapes, ritual killings, genocide, killing in the name of one god or another. The starvation, floods and other natural disasters...all the pain, suffering, slavery, death. God is then attributed with blame for either causing all these things by allowing them to happen & then...they pronounce judgement on the God they don't believe in.
How can God be anything else but a genocidal maniac, insensitve, uncaring, blood thirsty psychopath, a born killer full of hate and indifference? Its a question some atheists ask.
But why would anyone ask that question without asking them the same question with their worldview in mind. From the atheist why is it that the world has all this evil cruelty?
It can't be God's fault, He doesn't exist apparently.
It can't all be Theists fault, there are plenty of Atheists who have perpetrated crimes against humanity. Besides, if there's no God, the theists are just deceived people...so what then?
Q -If there is no God, why do all these things happen?
Well, based on the assumption there is no God whatsoever, there is only nature. Yes selfishness, greed and all the other motivations are there, but if there is no God, its only the Naturalist thinker that says "Animals are savage with good reason and without, humans are animals who have evolved no differently from any apex predator"
Q - "If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree and a coconut should come loose, falls down and strikes the man on the head & kills him, is that death as a result of an act of Good or Evil or something else?"
Invariably its regarded as an act of fate, an accident not good for the man obviously but not the direct result of an act of good nor an act of evil.
Q - "If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree and a deadly snake slithers up, bites him & he dies of snake bite, is that death a result of an act of good or evil or something else?"
Invariably now its gone from plant life to a poisonous animal its just an act of fate or nature doing what nature does. Its not a direct result of an act of good nor evil.
Q - " If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree and a hungry fresh water croc crawls ashore, grabs the man, drags him into the water, kills him and eats him, is that death the direct result of an Evil or Good act?"
Invariably its nature again, the croc was hunting, it was hungry. It was doing what hungry crocs do, it was just an opportunity for the reptile & sad for the man. Its very bad & tragic luck for the man but its neither a death caused by a Good Act nor an Act of Evil. Its just nature playing its part.
Q - " If a man lays sleeping under a palm tree when another man arrives & sees the sleeping man's possessions next o him. A Rolex watch, jewllery and an esky full of beer & food and then kills the sleeping man so he can take all the possessions.
Is the victim's death due to an Act of Good or an Act of Evil?"
Now things change a little. Yes its "against the law" and I get that, but legal statutes aside, look only at the moral angle. Assume it never gets to court or any legal process. Assume the killer's never caught and the dead man is never ever missed. Only the killer ever knows someone was killed, no crime is known to be committed.
Leave aside the legal angle, focus on the moral assessment.
Is one man killing the other immoral? Is it an act of evil? Is it an act of good?
Now for the Christian, its still very simple. Its a grave sin, its immoral, its against God's (moral) Law so it is therefore, very easily an act of evil. But for the atheist how's it go then?
Well the Atheist has few choices and they're both odd fitting.
Firstly they can say the killers, human, croc, snake & coconut are all earthly organisms that arrived to where they are today by all that evolution is said to contain. All were doing as survival dictates, even the coconut which was dropping its seed. The 3 animals had more intent than the coconut, albeit instinct perhaps more than anything. The 3 are all parts of the animal kingdom. They're all doing what nature does.
They could say its morally wrong for a croc, a snake or a coconut to kill a human, but there's nothing ethically binding. But they won't.
Apparently in the world that only came from nature, morals and the idea of Good & Evil are human social constructs so as to contain people in a society a little better. So all are less murderous and work to the general benefit of all human society.
Morals are a convenient social construct for the atheist and although the best outcome is we adhere to them, there is nothing within the laws of nature that says they're binding. In fact some societies thought cannibalism was an abomination, whilst other societies thought it was helpful, healthy and certainly not immoral.
Now you have the quintessential moral dilemma that sits with two people. The English explorer in the cooking pot and the noble islander adding herbs and spices. One has no moral problem, the other thinks he's being eaten by one.
Who's right? Apparently one's more primitive and one's more evolved hence the moral chasm. Poor explanation. The islander is still correct in his worldview.
So here we have Moral Relativism. What works for me, is right. What works for them is moral to them but if it is counter productive to me...its immoral to me. Pluralism is of little value if you're dinner not a dinner guest.
Or they can go straight to saying, the coconut, snake & Croc were acting out what's their natural behaviour as a part of the plant/animal kingdom. Its neither an act of Good nor Evil, there is no moral context, its just something tragic that happens in nature. Unlikely they reach for that explainer.
We start to see a sad facet of Liberalism, where everyone is right...even with opposing values.
Now we plainly see that atheistic morals, morals made by man not God are relative and have some fluidity where as God's moral laws are transcendent of man and do not change.
What if someone is killing people for spare change and in their moral mindset its quite ok because all victims are homeless people, no family, they're disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner and the victims were on drugs and committing crimes, a burden on society?
To the God follower, its still wrong, immoral, a sin and should stop. They should also be brought to account under the law of the land.
Then the most uncomfortable facet of all.
By what standard is there good or evil to judge an action if the goal posts can move due to culture or differing societal norms & standards? For the Christian it can only come from a transcendent moral law giver, not a fluid & subjective human depending on what cultural variables are present.
The Christian has no wriggle room. Morals are from God, they're absolute, binding and unchangeable to cause good not evil.
The atheist is left swinging a little.
This is why when an atheist says God if He exists is a blood thirsty sadistic maniac must say by what standard is that judgement made between good and evil and how can that standard flex and move if there's cultural influences amongst the moral subjectivity. Indeed how can we validly judge the cannibal today or the genocidal kings & knights of centuries ago? Or the religious systems of thousands of years ago?
Yes, the Christian has it a lot easier.
The Atheist needs far more faith and less intellectual rigour from others to sleep well due never being properly challenged in a similar way.
Liberalism. Where we tolerate all things different to us & if you don't agree then you're an intolerant bigot. I thought tolerance was having a different view but respecting the person with the different view. To liberals, clearly not.
No comments:
Post a Comment