As I lay in bed trying to go to sleep last night, atheism crossed my mind. Strange, I know, but it occurred to me that an atheist cannot argue against Christianity (or really, just about any form of theism) without first abandoning an atheistic pretense.
Take Epicurus’ failing attempt at being clever: “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?” (quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief).
Curiously, I saw that quote tied to an image of Epicurus styled as a motivational poster with the tagline “Atheism: Winning since 33 AD.” That’ curious because Epicurus lived several hundred years before that, but given the atheist’s requisite ability to invent truth out of thin air, I guess we can forgive the creator of the image for his oversight, right?
Epicurus’ riddle or paradox or whatever you want to call it presupposes the existence of good.
You see, beginning with a Judeo-Christian understanding of a Sovereign God who works all things according to His Will, there is no “problem of evil.” However, ripping the idea of absolute good from a Judeo-Christian framework and then attempting to marry that idea both with a limited understanding of the world and an erroneous concept of God… well, of course there’s going to be problems with your conclusions. Epicurus, were he a wiser man, would have faulted his own starting points rather than attempting to fault faith in God based upon his conclusions.
So what do I mean when I say that an atheist must abandon his atheistic presuppositions in order to mock, deride, or otherwise challenge the concept of God?
Epicurus’ riddle itself presupposes an absolute measure of moral goodness by which God can be judged, but if there is no God, then who is the arbiter of this measure of goodness? Inevitably, that arbiter is the atheist himself or, perhaps, a grouping of his peers or a majority in whatever culture the atheist is coming from. While only an absolute, transcendent being could arbitrate an absolute, transcendent morality, plenty of atheists claim to be able to do so, effectively making themselves their own gods. Atheism, then, becomes a guise for worshiping the creature rather than the Creator, a system of playing god legitimized by so-called “great thinkers” such as Richard Dawkins or Friedrich Nietzsche.
The difference, an atheist might say, is in theism, one worships a supernatural god whereas in atheism, there is nothing supernatural.
Fair enough, but I think claiming the ability to arbitrate some all-encompassing idea of moral truth is a claim to something supernatural. After all, true naturalistic morality is truly an “anything goes” affair. Eat your young, fight over territory, kill your mate, throw your droppings, attack the weak first.
Ok, here is a comment. I don’t know what to say. You make me think about a lot of things–even if I don’t always agree. Maybe that was a real comment after all :)
That’s what I’m here for, to make you think and, if need be, ask questions!
“Strange, I know, but it occurred to me that an atheist cannot argue against Christianity (or really, just about any form of theism) without first abandoning an atheistic pretense.”
Transcendental Argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
“Epicurus riddle or paradox or whatever you want to call it presupposes the existence of good.”
Showing an inconsistancy does not require any presuppositions- it merely shows something is not internally consistant.
“You see, beginning with a Judeo-Christian understanding of a Sovereign God who works all things according to His Will, there is no “problem of evil.” ”
Because you deny that evil exists. Which means that you have declared that suffering is not bad.
“Epicurus riddle itself presupposes an absolute measure of moral goodness by which God can be judged, but if there is no God, then who is the arbiter of this measure of goodness?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
“While only an absolute, transcendent being could arbitrate an absolute, transcendent morality,”
Or you could go with reality. It is absolute and transendant enough for our purposes.
“Fair enough, but I think claiming the ability to arbitrate some all-encompassing idea of moral truth is a claim to something supernatural.”
Morality involves the actions between individuals. Nothing supernatural there.
” After all, true naturalistic morality is truly an “anything goes” affair. Eat your young, fight over territory, kill your mate, throw your droppings, attack the weak first.”
Er, no. You are thinking of natural selection, which weeds out those traits.
Eating your young- no offspring
Fight over territory- property rights
Kill your mate- no offspring
Throw your dropping- you get sick and die
Attack the weak first- you appear weak and your neighbors take you down.
So survival is the ultimate end of morality, gotcha. Good to know. Doesn’t really answer anything and in fact raises even more questions.
“Or you could go with reality…”
Problem is, any philosopher’s views of reality are necessarily limited by what physical sense can tell. How prideful we would be to assume that our senses can tell us anything about absolute reality, especially if one begins with the presupposition that these senses are the product of evolution.
“So survival is the ultimate end of morality, gotcha. Good to know. Doesn’t really answer anything and in fact raises even more questions.”
Nope. Producing offspring is the end goal of evolution. Fortunately humans have developed culture which can allow us to ignore the whole genetics thing. Still, working to have the most offspring doesn’t mean sociopathic behavior- it means donating generously to sperm banks.
Morality is more utilitarian.
“Problem is, any philosopher’s views of reality are necessarily limited by what physical sense can tell. How prideful we would be to assume that our senses can tell us anything about absolute reality, especially if one begins with the presupposition that these senses are the product of evolution.”
Of course we are looking at shadows on the cave wall. But they are good enough for us. As long as the world is internally consistent, it doesn’t make a difference how “real” it is for trying to understand it.
Does your worldview provide for a “consistent” view of those who are unable to reproduce? Are they more or less important than those who can?
However, again, if we’re looking only to the natural order for what’s right or wrong or meaningful or valueless… then, I must reiterate that there are no answers in nature. All is vanity, and the end of all life on earth is destined to die with the sun, regardless of how many species reproduced.
Hey, Mr. Christian? How old was Jesus when he got crucified?
Oh, you don’t know, do you?
Thirty-three.
Not only do you miss the joke entirely, but you don’t even know what year your supposed Lord and Savior was “proven” as such. It is truly sad, considering you have to attack a philosopher who’s been dead for longer than Jesus has even been a legend just to transition into your babbling tirade, that you don’t believe in Christianity strongly enough to actually read the entire Bible.
I suppose the axiom is reversed for Christians, though–it’s not how sincere you are, it’s what you “believe.”
I’m not entirely sure what you’re talking about, Alessa; I assume your reference to Jesus’ age at crucifixion was because of the “Atheism: Winning since 33” thing. If so, then the joke was faulty: Epicurus had nothing to do with the events of 33 — actually, it’s very unlikely Jesus was crucified that year as well. Sorry to disappoint your well-reasoned comment, but it’s far more likely Jesus was crucified in 29, having been born four or five years prior to “year 1.”