|
By Dean Hardy
1) An illogical view of the beginning of the world
As an atheist, a person would have to hold to one of these two theories concerning the beginning of the world:
1) The earth popped into existence 14 billion years ago. It was simply uncaused; it just happened.
2) There was no beginning to the universe. The Big bang is rubbish and mere conjecture. Einstein was wrong about his theory, and most specifically when he spoke of the singularity that brought time, space, and matter into existence.
The first premise simply goes against the law of causality that states that if something has a beginning, then it has a cause. One would have to deny this scientific law in order to believe it!
The second would leave one rejecting the most influential and famous physicists that ever existed. One must understand that Einstein's idea didn't leave room for other "physical" things to exist prior to the Big Bang. All matter came into existence at that point. There was NO space or matter before the event of the Big Bang. So if something did exist before the Big Bang, it must have had an existence that was different from ours; meaning that there were no people, stars, and even our gases before the Big Bang. There are two options: something spiritual existed, or nothing at all. (The second option would bring us back to point 1 above.)
2) No absolute morals = No justice
At this time in history, the most vilified individual in the last century has been Adolph Hitler. He killed 6 million Jews during his time of power, not including the countless others that he deemed were 'undesirable.' Now, if you ask an atheist if Hitler's actions were morally responsible, they would have to answer, "Well, it was right for Hitler, but I would never dream of doing such a thing. I believe what he did was wrong, but I can't judge his morality. How can I say that my morality is better than his?"
In atheism, there cannot be an overriding absolute moral code to which all humanity is subject. There are only two options: individual relativism (I make my morals) or cultural relativism (my culture makes my morals). Of course, there are many problems with these views, but let me illustrate it with a story.
A principal at a private school has two 16 year old boys waiting outside his office. One of the boys was caught chewing gum in class, and the other was cheating on an exam. Neither boy had a history of doing anything wrong at the school before today. After meeting with the principal, he arbitrarily decides that the boy caught cheating should be given a detention, and the boy chewing gum should be expelled from the school.
Imagine that you are the parent of the gum-chewer. You would be seriously upset! But if you believe in individual relativism, then you MUST accept the principal's opinion since there is no sense of absolute right or wrong by which you can judge his actions. (Why is cheating worse than gum chewing?) On the other hand, if you were a cultural relativist, you would rely on the laws of the land for your morality, but since this is a private school, and there are no laws on the books for this sort of thing, you have no recourse but to accept the principal's position. You see, you could argue your opinion, but if your opinion is just as good and authoritative as the principal's, then why would he change his mind?
Again, if there are no absolute morals, then you have no foundation by which to judge (besides your meager opinion), then essentially, you couldn't judge! So, as a relativist, you shouldn't:
1) Protest against corporations who violate YOUR ethic
2) Involve yourself in any sort of civil disobedience
3) Argue for or against the existence of God, or any religion in particular.
4) Encourage anyone to change their behavior.
5) Fight against a dictator who is a genocidal megalomaniac
Again, as an atheist, all I could say is "here's my opinion, but if you don't like it, you are entitled to your own."
3) No belief in a soul- no afterlife
I personally struggle with the idea that all humans are merely material substances. I don't see how this could be believable. Within seven years basically every one of your cells has died out and replicated itself. So essentially, you are a new "material you" every seven years. What unifies and makes me "me" if not for some spiritual element to my existence?
There is no doubt that there are major differences between humanity and the animal kingdom. I completely understand that we are mammals, and that there are some genetic similarities, but this may actually help my point. With all of the similar physical features, there are also some important differences, namely the ability to think about thinking (psychology), having risibility (the ability to recognize irony), most have the inclination of a greater purpose (seeking some sort of relationship with a creator being), and having an understanding of morals (back to point 2).
There have also been examples of the other extreme; some, such as Peter Singer, have argued that we should not base our ethical judgments concerning animals on their level of rationality, their exterior texture (fur, skin, feathers, exoskeleton, etc.), or any other variable. Now of course, I don't think Dr. Singer would take it to this extreme, but if we, as humans, are the same as all other creatures, would I be morally culpable for killing thousands of ants, beetles, and grasshoppers every time I mowed my lawn?
Please don't misunderstand my point. I am not arguing that we should lug machine guns into the wild and destroy all life that we come in contact with. We do have a moral responsibility to take care of this earth. But then again, if I am an atheist, and thus a moral relativist, I could do what I wanted, as long as I thought it morally acceptable. If it were of my personal opinion, I could blow up Bambi, as long as I deemed it moral. (Thus the only truly consistent enviromentalists are moral absolutists.)
As a last note, I find it difficult to believe that there will be no afterlife. One of the main reasons for this is that we all feel there is a sense of justice that needs to be fulfilled for every heinous act. I don't think Hitler got what he deserved; he deserved worse. His committing suicide was not the sort of punishment that I believe genocide deserves. Of course, there is a flip side to this. Mother Teresa was a very giving woman who lived quite an impoverished life. She deserves many rewards for her actions, and I hope she now has them. I understand the frailness of this line of argumentation. Maybe it's human instinct for us to want all "loose-ends" to be tied, but then again, how did we get that instinct in the first place?
I will finish my article with an interesting quote from one of the greatest philosophers and serial killers of our time, Jeffrey Dahmer, "If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then-then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994
Dean Hardy is the Head of the Bible Department at Charlotte Christian School in Charlotte, NC. He earned his B.A. in Religion from Palm Beach Atlantic University and his Masters in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He can be reached via www.tostandyourground.com
|
