Tag Archives: Moral Values

Polemics

Atheist Jerry Coyne explains why morality is impossible and incoherent for atheists

7 Comments

Let’s review what you need in your worldview in order to have a rationally grounded system of morality:

1) Objective moral values

There needs to be a way to distinguish what is good from what is bad. For example, the moral standard might specify that being kind to children is good, but torturing them for fun is bad. If the standard is purely subjective, then people could believe anything and each person would be justified in doing right in their own eyes. Even a “social contract” is just based on people’s opinions. So we need a standard that applies regardless of what people’s individual and collective opinions are.

2) Objective moral duties

Moral duties (moral obligations) refer to the actions that are obligatory based on the moral values defined in 1). Suppose we spot you 1) as an atheist. Why are you obligated to do the good thing, rather than the bad thing? To whom is this obligation owed? Why is rational for you to limit your actions based upon this obligation when it is against your self-interest? Why let other people’s expectations decide what is good for you, especially if you can avoid the consequences of their disapproval?

3) Moral accountability

Suppose we spot you 1) and 2) as an atheist. What difference does it make to you if you just go ahead and disregard your moral obligations to whomever? Is there any reward or punishment for your choice to do right or do wrong? What’s in it for you?

4) Free will

In order for agents to make free moral choices, they must be able to act or abstain from acting by exercising their free will. If there is no free will, then moral choices are impossible. If there are no moral choices, then no one can be held responsible for anything they do. If there is no moral responsibility, then there can be no praise and blame. But then it becomes impossible to praise any action as good or evil.

5) Ultimate significance

Finally, beyond the concept of reward and punishment in 3), we can also ask the question “what does it matter?”. Suppose you do live a good life and you get a reward: 1000 chocolate sundaes. And when you’ve finished eating them, you die for real and that’s the end. In other words, the reward is satisfying, but not really meaningful, ultimately. It’s hard to see how moral actions can be meaningful, ultimately, unless their consequences last on into the future.

Atheists can’t ground any of these.  Let’s take a closer look at #4.

Atheists can’t ground freedom of the will 

Here’s Jerry Coyne’s editorial in USA Today to explain why atheists can’t ground free will. (H/T Neil Simpson)

Excerpt:

And that’s what neurobiology is telling us: Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into a predetermined output. Recent experiments involving brain scans show that when a subject “decides” to push a button on the left or right side of a computer, the choice can be predicted by brain activity at least seven seconds before the subject is consciously aware of having made it. (These studies use crude imaging techniques based on blood flow, and I suspect that future understanding of the brain will allow us to predict many of our decisions far earlier than seven seconds in advance.) “Decisions” made like that aren’t conscious ones. And if our choices are unconscious, with some determined well before the moment we think we’ve made them, then we don’t have free will in any meaningful sense.

If you don’t have free will, then you can’t make moral choices, and you can’t be held morally responsible.

Here are some more atheists to explain more about how atheists view morality.

William Provine says atheists have no free will, no moral accountability and no moral significance:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.

Michael Ruse says atheists have no objective moral standards:

The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.(Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

Richard Dawkins says atheists have no objective moral standards:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

When village atheists talk about how they can be moral without God, it’s important to ask them to justify the minimum requirements for rational morality. Atheists may act inconsistently with their worldview, expecting praise and blame for complying with the arbitrary standards of their peer group, but there is nothing more to morality on atheism that imitating the herd – when they are looking, anyway.

If you would like to hear a good debate where the importance of free will for morality is explained further, then click here.

Here is a good transcript of a debate on morality and atheism. And here’s a debate between William Lane Craig and secular humanist Paul Kurtz that you can watch on Youtube.

News

Should people of faith have a right to disagree with homosexuality?

2 Comments

From Ari, a post pleading for people of faith to defend their right to civil disagreement with others on moral questions.

Excerpt:

In Canada, citizens have been much more successful in getting the government to correct the thoughts of political heretics.  Moslem extremists and gay activists seem to be particularly keen in the use of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals to cleanse Canada from impious speech, thought and action.

Ezra Levant, for instance, is one of my main inspirations for Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel.  He was hauled before the tribunal for, among other things, republishing the now infamous Danish mohommad cartoons.  Pastor Stephen Boisson was fined and forbidden from preaching about the topic of homosexuality by the commission because his views on the subject offended gay activists. (Is my mind playing tricks on me, or am I beginning to notice a pattern here?)

Although homosexual conduct is forbidden by my faith, just as it is forbidden for Christians, I have never heard a rabbi mention the topic in all my years as a congregant.  I’m glad of this, because the unequivocal nature of the authentic Jewish teaching about this subject would make for a boring sermon.  Better to hear from the pulpit words of inspiration or discussion of issues that are made more interesting by there being some sort of gray area.

There are people who are offended by my opinion.  They are offended by my right and the right of my religious teachers to express that opinion, even if they almost always decline that right.  They are offended even though homosexual conduct is one of many, many acts that are forbidden by my religion and even though homosexual conduct occupies no special place among the things forbidden by my beloved faith.

I have little doubt that the persecution of Stephen Boisson has had a chilling effect on the speech of Canadian clergy.  This has to change.  Religious people must act if they are not to lose their rights one piece at a time.  They must defy the “enlightened” and “tolerant” forces that would oppose them.

The defiance doesn’t have to be hateful.  It doesn’t have to be over-the-top.  The simple, defiant declaration to conclude every sermon in the manner of Cato the Elder will suffice.  “Furthermore, I feel it my duty to call your attention to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13,” should be all that is necessary to stand up for free speech and to defy the bullies who would use the government to correct the thinking of its citizenry.

If enough clergy were to do so, it would be all the harder for Canada to trample on the rights of its citizens.

My secular case against same-sex marriage is here, which shows that you don’t need to be religious in order to oppose same-sex marriage.

Mentoring

Are churches preparing women to choose real men for husbands?

36 Comments

First, I want every one to take a look at this verse on providing for a family  in context: (1 Tim 5:3-8)

 3 Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need.

4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

5 The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help.

6 But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.

7 Give the people these instructions, so that no one may be open to blame.

8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

And these verses on charity in evangelism: (Phil 4:10-19)

10 I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 

11 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances.

12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.

13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

 14 Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. 

15 Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; 

16 for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need. 

17 Not that I desire your gifts; what I desire is that more be credited to your account. 

18 I have received full payment and have more than enough. I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. 

19 And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.

Now I want to talk about a very disturbing trend that I see in the church. I see a lot of women who are not prepared to choose men who are going to fill this provider role. Men have a role, straight from the Bible, to provide for their wife and children, and to donate to support evangelistic efforts. And providing is not predicated on how a man makes a woman feel. Providing is based on the things such as:

  • working for money before you are legally able to work for money
  • working summer jobs during high school and college
  • working during college or doing college degrees while working full-time
  • doing consulting work or running your own business from home in the evenings
  • studying science, technology, engineering and math (no exceptions!)
  • not drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes – no addictions of any kind
  • not spending money on hair, tattoos, clothes, shoes or flashy junk
  • own your own car, and keep it well-maintained
  • own your own pet, and keep it healthy and well-trained
  • pay your rent or mortgage payments on time
  • carry no debt, borrow no money
  • avoid depending on government welfare or student loans
  • not taking sick days, not getting sick at all
  • purchasing resources for others, especially things like apologetics books, to build them up
  • giving charity to solid Christian speakers and funding apologetics events (William Lane Craig debates)
  • making investments in stocks or real estate
  • maxing out 401K contributions and Roth IRAs
  • taking women out on dates, driving them in the man’s own car, and paying for everything
  • spending money to help the pro-life and pro-marriage causes (Morse, Klusendorf)

And I think you have to give bonus marks for getting up early, although I can’t do that. I know someone who does, though – the hardest working software engineer I know.

Women should not prefer young men who are studying political science, psychology, English, education, grievance studies, and other non-quantitative subjects which do not equip a man to provide enough salary and savings to run a Christian life plan (homeschooling or private Christian schools or both). What ends up happening is that there is a lot of fighting over money, especially with women who don’t have savings of their own before marrying. Without money, the children will likely get pushed into public school and they influenced by secularism and leftism.

What to do? Pick a man with a proven record of taking his responsibilities to study and earn seriously.

Here are some of the top earning careers:

Best Undergrad College Degrees By Salary – Full List
STARTING MEDIAN PAY MID-CAREER MEDIAN PAY
Petroleum Engineering $97,900 $155,000
Chemical Engineering $64,500 $109,000
Electrical Engineering (EE) $61,300 $103,000
Materials Science & Engineering $60,400 $103,000
Aerospace Engineering $60,700 $102,000
Computer Engineering (CE) $61,800 $101,000
Physics $49,800 $101,000
Applied Mathematics $52,600 $98,600
Computer Science (CS) $56,600 $97,900
Nuclear Engineering $65,100 $97,800
Biomedical Engineering (BME) $53,800 $97,800
Economics $47,300 $94,700
Mechanical Engineering (ME) $58,400 $94,500
Statistics $49,000 $93,800
Industrial Engineering (IE) $57,400 $93,100
Civil Engineering (CE) $53,100 $90,200
Mathematics $47,000 $89,900
Environmental Engineering $51,700 $88,600
Management Information Systems (MIS) $51,000 $88,200
Software Engineering $54,900 $87,800

I think that marrying someone who is not in one of these careers makes no sense at all, especially in light of a global recession.

And just to be clear, this is an area I struggle in myself. I am great at working for money, and saving it and investing it. But I say a lot of controversial things and a lawsuit would not be good for my fortune. I should be spending more time on evenings and weekends keeping my skills up, and that’s what I’m going to be doing on my vacation. But I think the standard stands regardless of my own abilities to meet it. It is the standard.

Money is an important part of the Christian life. The Bible says that if a man does not work, neither shall he eat. We have a tradition on what men are supposed to do in Christianity. Men are supposed to take care of business, and women are supposed to prefer men with proven records of taking care of business. Being handsome and fun is nowhere in the Bible as a qualification for men to be good husbands and fathers. But earning money and providing for others in the community is a non-negotiable requirement. It’s as required as the obligation to not marry a non-Christian man.

Women who are serious about Christianity will prefer men who meet the specifications laid out in the Bible. And this has to have been demonstrated over the course of years – a pattern of studying hard things, working multiple jobs, spending little, saving much and supporting family and evangelism.  To me, a woman who prefers a man who has no record of providing is a woman who has been influenced by feminism. She rejects the traditional roles of men and insists on a man who is has no authority to lead because he does not have the provider role. That’s what’s really going on here. Men who earn have authority to lead and hold a woman accountable when she misbehaves, and some women hate being led and being held accountable. (By being held accountable I mean disagreeing with the woman, canceling optional goodies, etc.)

I think we have a major problem in this society, and in the church, where we think that women are above criticism. We think that anything they feel like doing is a good idea. We think that their complete lack of rational thought and lack of planning in relationships is somehow “romantic”. We think that women who embrace spontaneity and ignorance of statistical data are “free spirits”. Is it any wonder that the out-of-wedlock birth rate is 42%, the divorce rate for first time marriages is 45%, and women are shacking up with unqualified men instead of getting married?

This is all – all – caused by the fact that women have no idea what men are for, and they deliberately prefer non-judgmental, non-theologically-exclusive, non-rational, tolerant, intuitive, wusses instead of men who give them hard books to read and who hold them accountable when they misbehave. Women today think it is a bad thing when a man holds her accountable when she disrespects him in public, but think it is a good thing to date a man who asks his parents to borrow the car keys before taking her out. Huh? I had a current year car with only 7500 miles on it at age 17 – because I was working two jobs in high school, and part-time IT/desktop publishing in my own business on the side.

Women who are interested in testing a man’s abilities can use my checklist for finding authentic Christian women. Those questions work on men too.

Related posts