I am seriously questioning my atheism

[Haven]

Disclaimer: This post may be out of place on the Christianity and Apologetics forum (even though it does have some relation to Christianity), if it is, I apologize and ask that it be moved to a more appropriate place on the forum. However, I do intend this thread to be a discussion, if not a debate, so I felt this was the best place for it.

As many of you know, I am an ex-evangelical Christian and a current atheist. By "atheist," I mean I lack belief in god(s) of any kind, although I do not assert that there are definitely no gods. Since departing from Christianity, everything has made so much more sense: an eternal Universe (defined as the totality of natural existence) explained existence, evolution explained the diversity of life on earth, the absence of god(s) explained the problems of evil, inconsistent revelation, and so on.

However, there is one thing that I have been unable to account for under atheism: morality. Atheists almost invariably state that moral values and duties are not objective facts, but are simply subjective statements of preference and have no ontological value. That is, of course, until we are presented with cases of true evil, such as the Holocaust, the atrocities of Pol Pot, or the horrible psychopathic serial killings of individuals like Jeffery Dahmer. Then we as atheists tacitly appeal to objective moral values and duties, saying that individuals who commit should be severely punished (even executed) for doing "evil," saying that they "knew right from wrong." But if right and wrong are simply statements of subjective opinion, then how can we say that others knew "right from wrong" and are accountable for their actions? If relativism is true, they simply had differing opinions from the majority of human beings. However, it seems obvious to me (and to the vast majority of others, theist and atheist alike) that this is absurd -- the monsters who carried out the aforementioned acts really, objectively did evil.

Given this, the only reasonable conclusion is that moral facts and imperatives exist.

However, atheism appears to offer no framework for moral facts. Because of this, a few weeks ago, I started up a discussion on Wielenbergian moral realism, which states that objective moral values are simply "brute facts" that exist without any explanation. However, others rightly pointed out that the existence of "brute facts" is ontologically problematic and that the best explanation (on atheism) is that morality is simply subjective. Additionally, even if atheistic moral facts existed, the Humeian problem of deriving an "ought" from an "is" would preclude them from acting as moral imperatives; commands which human beings are obligated to follow.

In light of these airtight logical objections to atheistic moral realism, I was forced to abandon my position on moral facts and tentatively adopt moral relativism. However, relativism still seems problematic. After all, if morality is subjective, no one person can accuse another of failing to recognize the difference between "right and wrong," however, it is obvious to me (and, I would suspect, to other atheists as well) that right or wrong really objectively (not subjectively) exist.

The only rational conclusion I can seem to come up with is that there is a (are) transcendent moral lawgiver(s) who both grounds moral facts and issues binding moral commands on all humanity; i.e., God(s). This echoes evangelical Christian philosopher William Lane Craig's moral argument, which syllogism reads:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

Premises 1 and 2 seem bulletproof -- (1) was demonstrated earlier in this post, leaving (2) as the only premise to attack. However, (2) seems to be as obvious as a hand in front of my face. The conclusion necessarily follows from (1) and (2), so is there any rational reason for me to reject the conclusion of the argument?

Remember, I am no believer of any kind. I am a staunch, educated, informed atheist, and I am well aware of the philosophical arguments against God(s), such as the problem of evil, the dysteleological argument, the problem of omniscience, etc. I'm also well aware of the plentiful empirical evidence against the existence of God(s), for instance, evolution, mind-body physicalism, etc. These are the reasons I reconverted from Christianity in the first place. However, I don't see way around this problem other than to accept either that our apparently obvious sense of moral facts is somehow mistaken, or that (a) theistic being(s) exist.

Debate question: Are my issues with atheism legitimate? Can atheism provide a coherent moral framework other than nihilism, relativism, or subjectivism? Do these problems really present evidence for theism? Is William Lane Craig right? Is this a real problem for atheism, or are my (our) emotions simply overriding my (our) rationality?

Feel free to present evidence for or against atheism, Christianity, or any religious or nonreligious perspective in this thread.

[olavisjo]

It is not my judgment of course. It is ethics, the law of the land and it's social contracts this organization must answer to and not my "judgment". "What could you appeal to to settle the problem." I would of course appeal to ethics, the law of the land and it's social contracts.

That is a bit circular in reasoning, and how would you tell the 6 million Jews in the gas chambers to simply "appeal to ethics, the law of the land and it's social contracts". Remember ethics, the law of the land and it's social contracts is what said they belong in the gas chambers in the first place.

[Artie]

It is not my judgment of course. It is ethics, the law of the land and it's social contracts this organization must answer to and not my "judgment". "What could you appeal to to settle the problem." I would of course appeal to ethics, the law of the land and it's social contracts.

That is a bit circular in reasoning, and how would you tell the 6 million Jews in the gas chambers to simply "appeal to ethics, the law of the land and it's social contracts". Remember ethics, the law of the land and it's social contracts is what said they belong in the gas chambers in the first place.

As an individual is responsible for how he interacts with the society he lives in, so was the German people responsible for how they interacted with the international society of the world of which Germany is a part of course. And the international society took care of this immoral behavior.

[olavisjo]

As an individual is responsible for how he interacts with the society he lives in, so was the German people responsible for how they interacted with the international society of the world of which Germany is a part of course. And the international society took care of this immoral behavior.

Yes, Germany lost to one that was stronger than themselves. So what shall we say "might makes right"? If the Germans had won the war then Germany would have taken care of the immoral behaviour of the allies.

[Artie]

As an individual is responsible for how he interacts with the society he lives in, so was the German people responsible for how they interacted with the international society of the world of which Germany is a part of course. And the international society took care of this immoral behavior.

Yes, Germany lost to one that was stronger than themselves. So what shall we say "might makes right"? If the Germans had won the war then Germany would have taken care of the immoral behaviour of the allies.

They lost because they behaved so immorally that other nations had no choice but to retaliate not because "might makes right". I can't speculate what would have happened if they had won and tried to conquer other territories of course. That I must leave to science fiction writers. There hasn't been a world war since though so some lessons must have been learned.

[1robin]

When humans evolved we formulated these moral codes into words like the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule and integrated them into religions or made them into laws and integrated them into justice systems. Of course an objective morality is logically impossible.

So, are trying to tell us that when a man kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills a twelve year old girl, he has done nothing objectively wrong, he only violates our words. And if he does it undetected, he does not even violate our words, laws and justice systems.

We use logic, reason and common sense and our understanding of how moral codes developed and ethics and upbringing and our conscience and the law of the land and social contracts to guide our moral behavior. What he does violates most if not all of these. Therefore his actions are immoral. It has nothing to do with whether he is detected or not.

Well suppose that a much more powerful organization has a completely different take and considers your judgement

It is not my judgment of course. It is ethics, the law of the land and it's social contracts this organization must answer to and not my "judgment". "What could you appeal to to settle the problem." I would of course appeal to ethics, the law of the land and it's social contracts.

If modern society actually did have a moral framework that followed strict evolutionary logic (God help us). Then what would you appeal to when the government comes to take you to a clinic to inject you with various experimental drugs.

Ehh... what an illogical statement. You do realize that a government that uses logic, reason and common sense and understand how and why moral codes developed and why they should be followed and understand ethics and the law of the land and social contracts would never do such a thing in the first place, right?

Because within an evolutionary only moral paradigm there would be nothing wrong with torturing a person to gain knowledge to help the masses. In evolution there is no sanctity of life.

Is that meant as a joke? Evolution is a mechanism that helps as much life as possible to survive not the other way around.

There is nothing evolutionarily speaking with euthenising the weak and old because that would preserve the vitality of the strong.

Did you miss my earlier post where I said "Mongooses support elderly, sick, or injured animals"? This moral behavior developed because there is more to gain than to lose by supporting elderly, sick or injured animals. What gains the individual gains the society, and vice versa.

This is the kind of stuff that reduces the credability of evolutionists is my opinion. The survival of the fittest gaurantees the destruction of the unfit. Why don't you have the courage of your convictions. You can't use an illogical argument to try to paint evolution in a rosy light. It is a brutal system. I would have more confidence in an evolutionist that would try squirming out of this but accept it as an obvious part of the theory. I do not deny the wars in the bible to try to paint it in a better light. As far as euthenasia or the destruction of the weak to guarantee the integrity of the strong. Check this out.

Evolution has played a major role in paving the way for the acceptance of euthanasia. Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog. Many evolutionists advocate euthanasia as a wonderful means to rid us of unwanted burdens. Such opinions lead to the belief that killing a severely handicapped child is ultimately no different to killing a pig.1 Since there is no God, there is no intrinsic value to human beings and therefore nothing wrong with killing a child who has Down's syndrome (a tragedy that already happens with abortion). Sadly, such opinions have wide acceptance by ethics committees deciding the fate of thousands of defenceless newborn children in our hospitals.
In Nazi Germany, once evolution was accepted as ‘state truth’, social Darwinism in the form of euthanasia was implemented—first on the terminally ill, then on the disabled and the elderly—those who were ‘burdens to society’—and finally on six million Jews and minority groups such as gypsies. In the same way, once euthanasia is legalised, our belief in evolution and false confidence in the opinions of men will likely carry it through society until death is not just a ‘right’, but a regimen. The vulnerable elderly, whose families have something to gain from their relative’s death, would have no protection against this evil because they are unable to fend for themselves. The right to die can easily become a duty to die, as already many are unwanted burdens under the current system.
The drastic erosion of the Christian basis for society is the logical consequence of the church’s failure to make a stand against evolution. Deny Genesis, and there is no reason for believing that man was made in God's image. We, who should be ‘salt and light’ in our culture, will be held even more responsible if we remain silent about the dangers of euthanasia whenever evolutionists are agitating for its legalization.
Contributors to this article:
Chan Perry, M.B., B.S., is completing specialist training in the areas of anesthetics and intensive care medicine through the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Melbourne, Victoria.
Peter Singer, an internationally renowned ethics philosopher Van der Maas et al., Lancet 338:669, 1991.
Address by Mr. Charles Frances, Queen’s Counsel Barrister, for ‘Trust Palliative Care Not Euthanasia ‘Actually a lie—Saul killed himself

[olavisjo]

There hasn't been a world war since though so some lessons must have been learned.

I don't think we have learned a thing about morality, we have just learned to kill so thoroughly that nobody would survive a third world war, and for fear of their own life no one has yet attacked.


You have yet to explain who gets to interpret "the logic, reason and common sense and understanding of how moral codes developed and ethics and upbringing and our conscience and the law of the land and social contracts to guide our moral behavior." Would you be willing to let the Nazis do that or do you prefer someone who thinks like you?

[Artie]

This is the kind of stuff that reduces the credability of evolutionists is my opinion. The survival of the fittest gaurantees the destruction of the unfit.

I'm sorry but your arguments make you lose credibility and show you have no idea what evolution is about. In a social context when organisms cooperate it is not the survival of the fittest but of those who behave morally! How many times must I quote the same passages? This is the last time!: "We see it everywhere. Organisms started cooperating. Cooperating organisms survived better because they cooperated. Cooperation automatically developed a common code of behavior called morals. You can see this everywhere in the animal world. Mongooses support elderly, sick, or injured animals, bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos, Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked, African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators and on and on and on."

Why don't you have the courage of your convictions.

Please demonstrate your evidence for me lacking the courage of my convictions or retract your statement.

You can't use an illogical argument to try to paint evolution in a rosy light.

Which illogical argument?

Evolution has played a major role in paving the way for the acceptance of euthanasia. Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog. Many evolutionists advocate euthanasia as a wonderful means to rid us of unwanted burdens. Such opinions lead to the belief that killing a severely handicapped child is ultimately no different to killing a pig.1 Since there is no God, there is no intrinsic value to human beings and therefore nothing wrong with killing a child who has Down's syndrome (a tragedy that already happens with abortion). Sadly, such opinions have wide acceptance by ethics committees deciding the fate of thousands of defenceless newborn children in our hospitals.
In Nazi Germany, once evolution was accepted as ‘state truth’, social Darwinism in the form of euthanasia was implemented—first on the terminally ill, then on the disabled and the elderly—those who were ‘burdens to society’—and finally on six million Jews and minority groups such as gypsies. In the same way, once euthanasia is legalised, our belief in evolution and false confidence in the opinions of men will likely carry it through society until death is not just a ‘right’, but a regimen. The vulnerable elderly, whose families have something to gain from their relative’s death, would have no protection against this evil because they are unable to fend for themselves. The right to die can easily become a duty to die, as already many are unwanted burdens under the current system.
The drastic erosion of the Christian basis for society is the logical consequence of the church’s failure to make a stand against evolution. Deny Genesis, and there is no reason for believing that man was made in God's image. We, who should be ‘salt and light’ in our culture, will be held even more responsible if we remain silent about the dangers of euthanasia whenever evolutionists are agitating for its legalization.
Contributors to this article:
Chan Perry, M.B., B.S., is completing specialist training in the areas of anesthetics and intensive care medicine through the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Melbourne, Victoria.
Peter Singer, an internationally renowned ethics philosopher Van der Maas et al., Lancet 338:669, 1991.
Address by Mr. Charles Frances, Queen’s Counsel Barrister, for ‘Trust Palliative Care Not Euthanasia ‘Actually a lie—Saul killed himself

I honestly don't know how to answer this last hateful "rant" and I shuddered when I read it. I have heard this kind of hateful rhetoric against a group of people before. It shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that it's horrible, the same kind of misunderstanding as in Nazi Germany, and it actually blames evolution and some evolutionists for euthanasia, the killing of handicapped children and even what happened in Nazi Germany, even though I have already thoroughly explained that what happened there was immoral and against evolution. I hereby withdraw from this conversation to avoid more such hateful rhetoric.

[Bust Nak]

They lost because they behaved so immorally that other nations had no choice but to retaliate not because "might makes right".

That's over stating things a bit. The other nations fought more to protect themselves than to right wrongs.

It is a brutal system. I would have more confidence in an evolutionist that would try squirming out of this but accept it as an obvious part of the theory. I do not deny the wars in the bible to try to paint it in a better light.

I don't see anyone denying the unpresent side of evolution. What we are denying is human should adopt the brutality in our society.

Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog. Many evolutionists advocate euthanasia as a wonderful means to rid us of unwanted burdens.

Sure, as long as you understand the unwanted burder here means unnecessarily pain as opposed to the sufferer of said pain.

So, are trying to tell us that when a man kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills a twelve year old girl, he has done nothing objectively wrong, he only violates our words. And if he does it undetected, he does not even violate our words, laws and justice systems.

I don't think that's what Artie is saying. But I will tell you clearly that:
When a man man kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills a twelve year old girl, he has done nothing objectively wrong, he violates my morality. I would go futher and say without batting an eye that Hitler has done nothing objectively wrong, he violates my morality.

[olavisjo]

I don't think that's what Artie is saying. But I will tell you clearly that:
When a man man kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills a twelve year old girl, he has done nothing objectively wrong, he violates my morality. I would go further and say without batting an eye that Hitler has done nothing objectively wrong, he violates my morality.

If they violate your morality, are you going to do something about it? If you are, then who or what gives you the right to do something about it?

[1robin]

This is the kind of stuff that reduces the credability of evolutionists is my opinion. The survival of the fittest gaurantees the destruction of the unfit.

I'm sorry but your arguments make you lose credibility and show you have no idea what evolution is about. In a social context when organisms cooperate it is not the survival of the fittest but of those who behave morally! How many times must I quote the same passages? This is the last time!: "We see it everywhere. Organisms started cooperating. Cooperating organisms survived better because they cooperated. Cooperation automatically developed a common code of behavior called morals. You can see this everywhere in the animal world. Mongooses support elderly, sick, or injured animals, bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos, Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked, African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators and on and on and on."

Why don't you have the courage of your convictions.

Please demonstrate your evidence for me lacking the courage of my convictions or retract your statement.

You can't use an illogical argument to try to paint evolution in a rosy light.

Which illogical argument?

Evolution has played a major role in paving the way for the acceptance of euthanasia. Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog. Many evolutionists advocate euthanasia as a wonderful means to rid us of unwanted burdens. Such opinions lead to the belief that killing a severely handicapped child is ultimately no different to killing a pig.1 Since there is no God, there is no intrinsic value to human beings and therefore nothing wrong with killing a child who has Down's syndrome (a tragedy that already happens with abortion). Sadly, such opinions have wide acceptance by ethics committees deciding the fate of thousands of defenceless newborn children in our hospitals.
In Nazi Germany, once evolution was accepted as ‘state truth’, social Darwinism in the form of euthanasia was implemented—first on the terminally ill, then on the disabled and the elderly—those who were ‘burdens to society’—and finally on six million Jews and minority groups such as gypsies. In the same way, once euthanasia is legalised, our belief in evolution and false confidence in the opinions of men will likely carry it through society until death is not just a ‘right’, but a regimen. The vulnerable elderly, whose families have something to gain from their relative’s death, would have no protection against this evil because they are unable to fend for themselves. The right to die can easily become a duty to die, as already many are unwanted burdens under the current system.
The drastic erosion of the Christian basis for society is the logical consequence of the church’s failure to make a stand against evolution. Deny Genesis, and there is no reason for believing that man was made in God's image. We, who should be ‘salt and light’ in our culture, will be held even more responsible if we remain silent about the dangers of euthanasia whenever evolutionists are agitating for its legalization.
Contributors to this article:
Chan Perry, M.B., B.S., is completing specialist training in the areas of anesthetics and intensive care medicine through the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Melbourne, Victoria.
Peter Singer, an internationally renowned ethics philosopher Van der Maas et al., Lancet 338:669, 1991.
Address by Mr. Charles Frances, Queen’s Counsel Barrister, for ‘Trust Palliative Care Not Euthanasia ‘Actually a lie—Saul killed himself

I honestly don't know how to answer this last hateful "rant" and I shuddered when I read it. I have heard this kind of hateful rhetoric against a group of people before. It shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that it's horrible, the same kind of misunderstanding as in Nazi Germany, and it actually blames evolution and some evolutionists for euthanasia, the killing of handicapped children and even what happened in Nazi Germany, even though I have already thoroughly explained that what happened there was immoral and against evolution. I hereby withdraw from this conversation to avoid more such hateful rhetoric.

This is a new one for me. I have withdrawn from conversations with evolutionists because of adversarial comments but never the other way around. I do not deny the premise for the statement that you want me to withdraw, however I will withdraw it as it is unproductive and unnessesary and doesn't display my Christian values. So it is withdrawn. As far as animals exhibiting altruistic behavior, without knowing their motivation and no one can then it isn't proof of anything. As far as my comments or articles written by Phds about euthenasia or the violence toward or the neglect of the weak being an obvious outworking from an evolutionary framework, I do not retract. Lastly I am sorry you don't want to deal with these type of claims as you always will have to if you are to defend evolution.