Letters To An Atheist Concerning Things That "Cannot Be Moderately Important"
This is, by far and away, the longest post in our discussion so far. I took careful consideration of Kiteman’s criticism concerning my “exclusion of direct responses” and carefully addressed mostly everything that I disagreed with from his last post. Each section in this post is organized by a bold heading. Since Kiteman and I have so many different irons in the fire, I would recommend wrapping this discussion up or confining it to only one or two of these topics. I’ll leave that up to Kiteman, but I will say that I have thoroughly enjoyed his passion and thought thus far and I am always delighted to throw in my fifty cents on these million dollar topics.
I went ahead and made a little table of contents for our discourse:
My first post: “Questions For The Evangelical Atheist”
Kiteman’s first response: “Evangelising”
My 2nd response: “At These Temperatures and Under These Conditions”
Kiteman’s 2nd response: “Sigh”
Ad Hominem Generalization
I almost admire Kiteman for sticking to his guns. I pointed out in my last post the basic fallacy of his argument as he charged Christianity with being guilty by association with unbiblical actions committed by Christians. This is a very base form of argumentation that has generally led to racism, sexism, religious strife, and many other forms of ignorant hatred. He continued to proceed with the claims that violence by people claiming to be Christian indicates that Christianity is violent in and of itself. Despite my refutation of this argument and warning of its dangers, Kiteman remains unmoved. Oh well, I won’t keep pressing the subject. P. G. Wodehouse said it best, “Some minds are like soup in a poor restaurant—better left unstirred.”
Morality
On the issue of morality, I’ve never claimed that atheists can’t be relatively nice and pleasant people. I take no issue on the idea that an atheist is fully capable of learning and following the rules. The preferential morality system of an upright atheist can be like a beautiful, intricate house; classic architecture inside and out, vibrant colors, hand-carved trimming, much of it handed down from generation to generation. There’s only one problem with this house: It has abandoned the foundation it was built upon and now sits on raw ground. The tectonic nature of moral relativism will not allow for anything less than an impractical structure void of virtue and objective meaning. Morals, in order to be authoritative, must be able to get past the simple, sandlike system of group preferences.
That said, I feel the need to comment on this specifically:
“Morality is an emergent function of the complexities of human interaction. It cannot exist except between groups and societies, and is always based, at least in part, on what goes before, much like christianity is based on judaism, and judaism is based on the Egyptian and Babylonian religions that existed earlier.” -Kiteman
I’ll brush off the purposeful historical ignorance and go straight to the accidental authoritative ignorance. This, Kiteman’s personal definition of morality, is what was used in an attempt to refute my point on how the consequences of moral relativism can play out on each individual person subscribed to it. I find it appropriately ridiculous that Kiteman chose not to refer to an expert in philosophy or ethics to prove or at least try to explain this point. No, he made up his own definition. He chose some really cool words like “complexities” and “function”, but why must I consider his definition as the true definition of morality? Why can’t I make up my own? I know some cool words too.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. defines morality as “conformity to ideals of right human conduct.” The controversial word in this definition is of course, “right”. This word goes well beyond simply explaining what is and isn’t; there’s a certain implied objectivity to it. Having a subjective view of morality, even a societally subjective view such as Kiteman’s implies that morality is nothing more than a glorified version of individual or group preferences. Preferring certain behaviors to be one way or another does not properly define morality. A group’s preferred conduct does not make it right. Kiteman’s view of morality through evolutionary psychology recognizes that attributes such as compassion and kindness are good because they’ve helped humanity survive and continue to do so. It is perfectly ok to make the observation that compassion exists in our societies, it’s also ok to speculate on why compassion exists and how it’s beneficial or pragmatic, but it is completely illogical to call this attribute “good” or “right”. Evolutionary psychology can only observe and describe which characteristics evolved within a species. By no means should that lead us to which characteristics should be valued and which should be avoided. Evolution has allegedly led humans to be kind and compassionate, but also aggressive and domineering. Just because these tendencies could be a direct result of our survival doesn’t mean they should be considered objectively good. We are not dealing with the rules of fair play, we are dealing with the authority of the issue and why I, as a thinking individual should or shouldn’t follow along.
“It is a sad fact that strongly religious individuals are the least likely to plan for the future, and to consider the long-term consequences of their actions.” -Kiteman
This is what Kiteman meant by my being wrong about the atheist postmortem. Again, Christians are unnecessarily lumped into a generalized category. Might as well say, “All you religious types are the same, what with your anti-reason and your littering and whatnot.” I respectfully enjoy this beautiful earth that God created. It is incredibly important for Christians to be good stewards of what God has made. As for my least likeliness to plan for the future and not considering “the long-term consequences”, I’d have to say that this couldn’t be further from the truth. I would encourage Kiteman to consider the longer-term consequences of unbelief. As C.S. Lewis said, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”
Worldview
In the next paragraph, Kiteman says that I “exhibit amazing arrogance when assuming that any worldview that is not based on {my} own religion is inherently lacking in value.” Its not value that atheism lacks, its truth, reason, philosophy, and logic. I absolutely value the worldview of atheism; so thoroughly in fact, that I read everything I can on the subject. This is not always an easy task since so much of contemporary atheistic literature exhibits the very arrogance that I’m currently being accused of having. In books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Coyne, and the like, the Christian worldview is consistently bullied with sarcasm and weak points of ridicule that show either a lack of understanding or a purposeful distortion of Christian teachings.
Atheistic Solidarity
“It's simple: atheism means that you do not believe in any gods.” -Kiteman
I suppose it really is that simple. Since Kiteman put it in those terms, I can define theism just as simply; it means that you do believe in a god. Where you go from these 2 simplistic definitions is pretty crucial. Kiteman says that “atheists are ultimately responsible for their own behaviour.” Christians are also responsible for their own behavior “so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body” (2 Corinthians 5:10), but we also acknowledge God as the “lawgiver and judge” (James 4:12). So not if, but when a person in this society breaks the rules, we refer to the objective, authoritative standard which he should be judged by, not a shifting, preferential standard of the majority.
My Bad
I will concede a mistake of mine. This is a great observation that Kiteman made from my last post. It will remain on that post as a mistake. I misused a quote from two scientists concerning science. That quote had mostly nothing to do with atheism. Similarly, many arguments within the Christian church have mostly nothing to do with God or the bible, but I'll get to that in a bit. On a side note, my back teeth are still a little sore from when I first read that Kiteman referred to journalist Christopher Hitchens as a “philosopher.”
What “Objective” Means
“If your god is an ‘objective truth’, why do so many people disagree on whether he even exists? Such disagreement is not possible when being objective.” -Kiteman
Actually, it is. First, let’s consider what “objective” really means. Objectivity does not ask for your permission to be, it just is. Philip K. Dick put it so well, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” A blind person might not believe that the grass is green, but I’m ok with that. For a person to think that they must believe in something for it to be objectively true, they are grossly missing the all-encompassing nature of the idea of objectivity.
That said, does God give us the libertarian free will to doubt or deny His existence? Absolutely. God exemplifies love and freedom by letting us choose to follow Him or not.
Christian Solidarity
“If your god is an ‘objective truth’, why are there forty one thousand different denominations of the ‘one’ faith?” -Kiteman
There are three main branches within Christianity; Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism. Each subgroup or denomination fits within one of these 3 categories. These denominations come from disagreements concerning secondary areas of belief or practice. Denominationalism is often a symptom of pride, worship service preferences, semantics, and clashing personality types, not lack of an objective authority.
Motive
“The fact is that the majority of christians label themselves as such through family tradition and cultural inertia, not because they have encountered their god.” -Kiteman
I agree, other than the fallacy that we should call a suspicion “fact.” There’s no way Kiteman or I could prove that.
“That minority who claim to have come to their faith after meeting their god do so through personal revelation, the ultimate in subjectivity.” -Kiteman
...Unless that revelation were real, in which case it would absolutely be objectively true. While my worldview is consistent with my growing knowledge and understanding of reason, philosophy, history, sociology, and science, the main thing that draws me to our loving Creator is the empirical evidence of a personal relationship with Him. To me, it seems ridiculous that someone would try to disprove what they themselves have not witnessed.
In Closing
“If you bring factual evidence to the table, and keep the table in one place, then I'm happy to carry on.” -Kiteman
As I said in my opening paragraph, I too, would not be opposed to continuing this discourse with the request that we limit the topics at hand. If Kiteman would like to discuss morality, Christian vs. Atheistic evangelistic motives, or anything else, I’d be happy to share my thoughts and the reasons for my thoughts. But let it be known that throughout this entire discourse, I’ve been putting out the effort of including other philosophers, journalists, thinkers, and scientists into our discussions to better represent each side of the argument. If we continue, I would prefer that Kiteman also show his work and scholarship, seeing as how none were offered in his last 2 posts.
blakekathryn
kaledo-art
ellievsbear
dailybridgerton
kianamaiart
baratheonpilled