T.S. Elliott, wrote, “The greatest proof of Christianity for others is not how far a man can logically analyze his reasons for believing, but how far in practice he will stake his life on his belief.”
True enough, but we can apply this same truth to atheism:
“The greatest proof of atheism for others is not how far a man can logically analyze his reasons for disbelieving in God, but how far in practice he will stake his life on his atheism.”
How consistently will an atheist stand up for his atheist beliefs without borrowing from the Christian worldview? Consider the dedication of the atheist monument in Starke, Florida, on June 29th.
The atheists representing the monument reject any notion of a transcendent God as Creator and lawgiver. So how can they critique biblical morality and then account for atheist morality in a world that is nothing but atoms?
There is no inherent moral category given atheist presuppositions. To be consistent, atheists should not be concerned with morality since a list of moral “dos” and “don’ts” have not been found in the fossil record, discovered in meteorite samples, moon rocks, or culled from the stuff of this planet.
The symbol of the American Atheists is the letter “A” surrounded by two revolving atoms. At the foundation of all that we are, according to atheists, we are nothing but atoms:
Atheists are materialists. Their worldview is a matter-only worldview. If a proposition can’t be seen, touched, and measured, it doesn’t exist. Morality, reason, and logic do not have any physical substance. They can’t be dissected and studied in the laboratory. You can’t find them on the Periodic Table. They don’t show up in the study of the genome.
Atheists would tell a critic like me that they believe in morality. They may believe in morality, but they can’t account for it. They would argue that all things and actions are permissible except those things and actions that hurt or trample on the rights of others. Who says? Where is this law found?
The American Atheist website says to its fellow-atheists, “Stand Up for Your Rights.” I want an atheist to explain to me how the first atom to appear in our cosmos and somehow transmuted itself into organic life was justified in claiming “rights” for itself. Where did the intelligence necessary for such a thing to happen come to pass?
Richard Dawkins talks a lot about morality. He was recently asked who he believed was “the most moral person ever.” He responded that atheist and moral philosopher Peter Singer would be a top contender.
Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood: “a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference’, therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.” Singer’s assertions are perfectly logical for an atheistic evolutionist.
Singer’s ethic is “the greatest good for the greatest number.” What constitutes “good” for atheists like Singer and Dawkins? Hitler was as utilitarian as Singer. He believed that killing all the Jews was the greatest good for the greatest number.
If we take these atheists back through evolutionary time, when pre-humans were killing and eating other pre-humans, how would they have answered the morality question? As evolutionary observers, they could not make a moral judgment in that time. Evolution was in the process of making humans like them. Kill or be killed was what got us here.
A hundred or so American Atheists were out in force to promote atheism with a monument that concludes that humans are only a conglomeration of atoms with no moral absolutes to tell the atoms how to act.Notes: