Atheisms moral deficiency and apologetics

[Gman]

The philosophy underlying Darwinism is perfectly atheistic. Put the other way, Darwinism is atheism expressed philosophically pertaining to origins.

Yes but there is a part in "Origin of Species" where Darwin said that life was breathed into “by the Creator." However, the prevailing philosophical view of Darwinian evolution is predominantly atheistic. No argument there.. And your wouldn't find statements of a "creator" in our modern science books today.

An atheist's philosophical naturalism is more easily flown under the radar of true scientific inquiry with atheistic beliefs. Philosophical naturalism often doesn't even get questioned when they mix their atheistic philosophy with scientific practice whereas ID proponents do.

I believe part of the problem here is that we have two religions in conflict here. One is the atheist's religion and the other are those that believe in a supernatural creator. Again I believe that the scientific communities don't recognize this and pass off religion as only being a supernatural one. Therefore it is automatically deemed unscientific rendering the atheistic religion as the only legitimate source or science.

[DannyM]

Could someone explain to me what "metaphysical naturalism" means?

The term is ambiguous and ultimately contradictory. Naturalism is a worldview that assumes that the physical world is the only one that exists, the only one that can be known and the only one that can be observed and measured scientifically. In short, Naturalism contains zero percent supernatural and 100% natural. Metaphysics cannot be regarded as a body of valid knowledge by naturalists because the objects which metaphysics investigates cannot be investigated scientifically. This is why I said,

Metaphysical naturalism? Wow...a two-headed monster! It must be the littermate of Agnostic atheism! (Talk about oxymorons!)

FL

Thanks FL, that'll do for me! I was kinda thinking the same thing.

[DannyM]

For the record, Danny, just to follow up on FL's excellent summary, metaphysics has been broadly regarded as dead--or at least not a primary area of study--since Kant. That doesn't mean that there aren't philosophers deeply interested in metaphysics or metaphysical questions. It just means that those philosophers are regarded by the scientific community--and by many philosophers of science--as playing with ideas unrelated (at best) to scientific issues.

Imagine if a scientist were to come out talking about how morality had a direct bearing on some scientific experiment. He'd be regarded as unscientific in every sense of the word. So, too, would "metaphystical naturalists." This, by the way, is the reason I say that Darwinism is inherently atheistic. The philosophy underlying Darwinism is perfectly atheistic. Put the other way, Darwinism is atheism expressed philosophically pertaining to origins.

Off to visit my father. More later.

Thanks Jac. I have to take issue with you on your point about Darwinism being atheistic. For me, Darwinism leads neither to atheism or theism. Many atheists have indeed hijacked Darwinism to reinforce their own worldview, but Darwinism itself is not inherently atheistic. I'm not solid on this, and I might be wrong, so know that I'm going to think on this some more.

All the best Jac.

God bless

[DannyM]

I believe part of the problem here is that we have two religions in conflict here. One is the atheist's religion and the other are those that believe in a supernatural creator. Again I believe that the scientific communities don't recognize this and pass off religion as only being a supernatural one. Therefore it is automatically deemed unscientific rendering the atheistic religion as the only legitimate source or science.

Very well put. I think you cut to the heart of the issue right here with this post.

[Gman]

I believe part of the problem here is that we have two religions in conflict here. One is the atheist's religion and the other are those that believe in a supernatural creator. Again I believe that the scientific communities don't recognize this and pass off religion as only being a supernatural one. Therefore it is automatically deemed unscientific rendering the atheistic religion as the only legitimate source or science.

Very well put. I think you cut to the heart of the issue right here with this post.

Especially when people say that evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence, especially when they say that evolution has no faults or don't record the failures of it. It becomes dogmatic.

Definitions of science may be neutral, but somewhere down the line they will probably be turned into the philosophical. Why? I believe we call it human nature..

This is from a previous post.. But I like it.

"Of course the claim by many evolutionists is that Darwinism does not interfere with God's existence. Probably a more accurate way natualists say it is that if God does exist, existing is probably the “only” thing God has ever done. God is permanently unemployed and has never found useful employment in the entire history of life because impersonal material forces were capable of doing the whole job by itself and did do it. So essentially if one was believe that God does exist, that existence would fade away into unreality. It's essentially the premise that nature is all that there is. Any other belief is automatically ruled out."

This is another reason why it can be frustrating to the theist. Which is why ID will probably never be accepted.. Not on the science it may have, but the philosophy that is tied to it. Atheism, on the other hand, is more stealthy. It's philosophy will pass through easier (with no supposed philosophy) into science and be called scientific.

Makes sense?

[Gman]

Just thinking out loud here. Darwinism may be neutral to science, but it is much more easily tied into the atheistic framework or philosophy. Giving atheism a stronger logical hold. The upper hand...

[DannyM]

I believe part of the problem here is that we have two religions in conflict here. One is the atheist's religion and the other are those that believe in a supernatural creator. Again I believe that the scientific communities don't recognize this and pass off religion as only being a supernatural one. Therefore it is automatically deemed unscientific rendering the atheistic religion as the only legitimate source or science.

Very well put. I think you cut to the heart of the issue right here with this post.

Especially when people say that evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence, especially when they say that evolution has no faults or don't record the failures of it. It becomes dogmatic.

Definitions of science may be neutral, but somewhere down the line they will probably be turned into the philosophical. Why? I believe we call it human nature..

This is from a previous post.. But I like it.

"Of course the claim by many evolutionists is that Darwinism does not interfere with God's existence. Probably a more accurate way natualists say it is that if God does exist, existing is probably the “only” thing God has ever done. God is permanently unemployed and has never found useful employment in the entire history of life because impersonal material forces were capable of doing the whole job by itself and did do it. So essentially if one was believe that God does exist, that existence would fade away into unreality. It's essentially the premise that nature is all that there is. Any other belief is automatically ruled out."

This is another reason why it can be frustrating to the theist. Which is why ID will probably never be accepted.. Not on the science it may have, but the philosophy that is tied to it. Atheism, on the other hand, is more stealthy. It's philosophy will pass through easier (with no supposed philosophy) into science and be called scientific.

Makes sense?

Oh yes! As I said, you really have cut to the heart of the matter. Atheism is a religious philosophy. But what has happenes is, as you say, it has passed through the scientific radar and been deemed acceptable- not just acceptable, but practically NECESSARY, among much of the scientific community. We have scientists believing, and I do believe they BELIEVE- that evolution, and especially Darwinism, entails atheism. Darwinian evolution is the coup de grace, the fate de la compli for the strident atheists. It is their Rock of Gibraltar. And of course, ID will be forever vilified by the sanctimonious scientists who have lost all focus of the underlying philosophy of their discipline. If it wasn't such a sad state of affairs, G, it'd be hysterically funny!

[DannyM]

Just thinking out loud here. Darwinism may be neutral to science, but it is much more easily tied into the atheistic framework or philosophy. Giving atheism a stronger logical hold. The upper hand...

You're right. But atheism, being purely about the natural and strictly opposed to the unnatural, is bound to see science as its natural ally. The only problem is that we have atheists/scientists, scientists/atheists who have allowed this illusion of natural harmony to flourish. The fact is that science makes no claims about the supernatural whereas atheism DOES make such claims.

Just thinkin' out loud with ya

[Gman]

Just thinking out loud here. Darwinism may be neutral to science, but it is much more easily tied into the atheistic framework or philosophy. Giving atheism a stronger logical hold. The upper hand...

You're right. But atheism, being purely about the natural and strictly opposed to the unnatural, is bound to see science as its natural ally. The only problem is that we have atheists/scientists, scientists/atheists who have allowed this illusion of natural harmony to flourish. The fact is that science makes no claims about the supernatural whereas atheism DOES make such claims.

Just thinkin' out loud with ya

Yes.. When matters of public policy are debated, no religions should have the seat at the table. Why not? Because religion is no longer considered an objective knowledge. So it does not belong in a public debate. Basically Darwin fulfilled the gap in the naturalistic picture of the universe. If evolutionary forces produced the mind then things like religion and morality and no longer transcendent truths, but are things simply produced by humans imagination, they are products subjectivity.

Religion (as it is understood publicly) sounds nice but is known to be wrong based on materialistic philosophy. It's almost like the heart vs. the brain conflict. The heart is what we use for religion and the brain is what we use for science. Religion essentially is what you believe because of faith. With science, you need evidence and need to back it up. Science deals with the material world of genes and cells, religion with the spiritual world of value and meaning. Science is about facts, religion is about personal values. This isn't even accurate, because Christianity does make claims about the material world, about the cosmos, about human nature, events in history, etc..

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

When matters of public policy are debated, no religions should have the seat at the table.

This is indeed unfortunate but necessary for most countries now. Some do not follow this, Muslim countries and Israel are notable exceptions with widely differing social climates based of the evilness of Allah for the former, and the goodness of God for Israel. Atheist regimes - those that still survive - are another example of a state religion* that tyrannizes its subjects.

Good vs Evil, therein lies the struggle! The atheist says that good and evil are determined by cultural consensus and are a matter of opinion; there is no room here for the study of morality as a science, indeed the very idea is foolish! The Christian says good and evil are determined by God and may be objectively known through the Bible. Can you see the very wide canyon that separates them and us?

FL

*more accurately a proto-religion.

[touchingcloth]

What I was saying was that if an person follow the atheistic world view 100% then that person will be evil. Because you take the whole package - the devaluing of humans as an important species and the lack of objective moral values - everything is therefore relative and morality is down to each individual interpretation of it. No one can judge someone else's values as wrong as there is no objective standard to base it against.

Then that's neither essentially evil nor essentially good - it just is.

You could look at it as "the devaluing of humans as an important species", but really all it says is that all species are equally important - so any devaluing is only relative. Equally you could say that a worldview which promotes humans as the most important species devalues every other species.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Then that's neither essentially evil nor essentially good - it just is.

Essential: 1: of or relating to an essence, : as a: having or realizing in itself the essence of its kind ; having or consisting of the basic, most fundamental nature, property, quality, or attribute peculiar to or necessary or indispensable to its kind <the sunshine where it fell was a blinding ~ essential light.> ... -Merriam Webster's Third New International Dictionary.

There is no such thing as «essential» good or evil in atheism. As I've said before, atheism and Hinduism share this peculiar trait. In atheism «goodness» depends on the value* a thing has in relation to desire or need, and relative to to the value* placed on it by the culture. Understand this and you'll understand TC's reasoning and you'll understand why exterminating millions of Jews is OK, providing a culture has the proper mindset.

One last thing. In this discussion, Jac used the narrow definition of atheism. The narrow definition is «the unbelief in a god or gods». There is also the broad definition; this is the definition that the Bible uses when it says The fool says in his heart there is no God. The broad definition of atheism includes the narrow and includes all false gods and false beliefs. All of these share a common hatred of God and his Word. From the biblical point of view, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, agnostics & whatever are all unregenerate sinners who have rejected the sovereign will of God.

FL

*Notice the word value. This word has replaced the words «good» and «evil» in atheist and secular speech. Our concept of morality is now in the language of commodities, an economic morality . Marx would be proud! ...but that's another subject.

[touchingcloth]

The narrow definition is «the unbelief in a god or gods». There is also the broad definition; this is the definition that the Bible uses when it says The fool says in his heart there is no God. The broad definition of atheism includes the narrow and includes all false gods and false beliefs. All of these share a common hatred of God and his Word.

All atheism demands a hatred of god?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

All atheism demands a hatred of god?

Yes. That's the quick answer. Here's a brief explanation:

There is both a broad and a narrow definition for the word hate. The narrow definition can be explained through synonyms such as detest, loathe and resent, for example. The Bible asks Christians to Hate (narrow definition) what is evil... (Romans 12:9) Many atheists hate God in this sense. You may want to visit an atheist forum - or a Muslim forum - to see examples of this narrow [-minded] hatred.

The broad definition is understood by synonyms such as dislike, annoy, distasteful and so on. «I hate chocolate cake!» is an example. I'll eat chocolate cake under certain circumstances but if I never had it for the rest of my life, that would be fine. From my own experience, the majority of atheists are in this group. New Age agnostics and secular Muslims are two examples.

Enmity toward God is the actuating principle and governing propension of the mind of the flesh...the implication is that the disposition underlying all activity [of the unregenerate mind] is one of opposition and hatred of God.≠

I just read the above today, a few hours ago while waiting for my doctor's appointment! Right after my regeneration, I knew immediately that what motivated me as an atheist was hatred towards God. It was nice to see a serious theologian taking the same view. I don't expect you as an atheist to accept this...hell, you can't even understand what we speak of! ...but one day - if God decides you've spewed enough foolishness - maybe He'll call you.

FL

≠John Murray, «The Epistle to the Romans», Vol. 1, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 286