I was interested to hear how a Christian would respond to this problem, so I went searching. You could perhaps improve your argument by addressing these:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6101

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/heaven.html

http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi039.asp

Ryan,

I feel like the second and third links are compatible with how I’ve stated (1). They agree along with me that free will is compatible with evil never being actually chosen (their reasons might be different but the important components are there).

William Lane Craig’s stance would resolve the problem, but I might consider his a fringe view. No argument will likely cover all theological positions. I’ll often go after a specific philosopher’s view, but in this case my aim is more like the average believer. I think the average Christian believes they will retain free will in Heaven and there will also be no evil or suffering.

Craig in general has some views that I find odd about Heaven. I think he does not beleive there is a Heaven currently and that it won’t be populated until the end times. That is when the believers are all supposed resurrected and their existence in this Heaven will actually be within bodies. He thinks we will all have brand spankin new resurrection bodies, like Jesus did. I don’t think anyone’s going to accuse him of heresy, but tell this to the average Christian and they will think you’re pretty strange. They think their deceased loved ones are there in Heaven now as spirits, etc.

We can ignore the second link. Let’s just say I skimmed.

I included the third mainly because of the excerpt from the Craig/Bradley debate, which addresses this very issue and is hinted at near the end of the first link.

Anyway, I understand that you want to confront typical Christian beliefs and cannot account for all theology, but a Christian who cannot respond to your argument without help from Craig will likely just adopt Craig’s position to retain the faith. This is especially true for the average Christian, whose basis for belief lies beyond reason, you target here. If we’re going to “force” Christians down these alternative paths, it would be best if we were prepared for whichever choice they might make. Alternatively, we can focus on the arguments that most restrict the interpretive/creative liberties they take with their texts.

As I wrote on your blog, I happen to think that this argument and its variations are among our most compelling. I was simply curious to see if you had a response for Craig or if we must concede its bare possibility. We’ve made progress either way, whether by winning the argument or finally pinning the Christian down on a position, which at times seems about as difficult as grasping water.

There is somewhere to go from here, but it requires switching arguments (although it’s more like continuing than switching because it would still be about free will). We would eventually end up in a discussion of Plantinga and whether or not the ability to freely choose evil possibly allows for some higher order good. My argument against that is an extension of what I said here: http://foxholeatheism.com/free-will-and-evil/. I’m planning on writing that extension to explain precisely how that stance can be used against Plantinga (some time in the next few days).

I have to guess that ultimately we might end up in some little back alley of possibility for him to reside. Probably not much I can do about that, though.

I’ll also just point out that Craig is ultimately not an evidentialist. He is not basing his belief in God on argument or evidence, but on the “internal witness of the Holy Spirit.” I think it’s fair to wonder whether that is a sham because assuming that internal witness is reliable is presumably based on some argument or evidence. However, if someone is really committed to that position, then no argument will persuade them otherwise. So, I can argue against the evidential claims he does make, but even effectively disproving every single one of them would still not be enough.

As respectfully as I can say this, that article(ette) is completely inconsistent. I followed your reasoning I believe, quite well. I understand what point you are making. However, phrases and/or words such as “highest good,” “evil” etc. cannot have any meaning if the atheist wants to live and think consistently with his initial claim (that is, that there is no God or gods, or at least that right now there is insufficient evidence to support God’s existence). Why is this? Well I would like to take the cancer example used above.

Is it better for people to have cancer or for us to cure cancer once and for all? I would think virtually everyone would say that the cure for cancer would be a good thing. And that is the problem for the atheist.

If there is no God, then there cannot be any absolute basis for anything being “good” or “bad.” It is not better to be cancer free than it is to have cancer, and it is no better to exist than to not exist. If human beings have come about by the result of anything other than God, then “good” and “bad” only exist as concepts we have created in our minds. These things are not real, and we should not impose these ideas on the world, because their existence is strictly dependent upon the existence of a fallible, highly subjective entity (i.e. the human race).

To say “there is no God” and to say “there is evil” is nonsensical. Evil only truly exists if God does. Suffering might exist, but it can neither be said to be “evil” nor can it be “bad.” To say such a thing is to assume an absolute truth that could only truly be derived from an outside, almighty source.

Hi Aaron. Luckily, I just addressed this point so I can save myself from writing. Check out this piece: http://anamericanatheist.org/2011/09/20/atheism-and-evil-part-1/

Basically, what you’re insisting on isn’t required to put forward an argument about the internal consistency of premises. We are actually assuming here for the sake of argument commonly accepted Christian beliefs.

Thanks for the comment.

I just looked up some of the ways you’ve answered in other cases when people have said atheism is internally inconsistent. I understand that it is harped on a lot. It seems bothersome to atheists who constantly have to deal with it. But try as I may, I just don’t see a real answer on this issue.

Okay, thanks. I don’t want to be a nagging theist who constantly uses “the same old things” but I am having trouble seeing how anything could be coherent from the atheist worldview. I’ll read on…

Aaron, I think I can help to clarify the issue. Imagine you stumble upon a group of people who tell you they worship the unicorn. You look around, though, and see a bunch of pictures of a horse with two horns and statues of the same thing. Now, you don’t have to think unicorns or bicorns actually exist to recognize an inconsistent position.

I do happen to think atheists can have coherent moral views, but it’s just not important here. The question is whether a being is as great as possible when it could have chosen better actions (if you agree that 1 is better, then it’s by your standards so it doesn’t matter what atheists believe).

Interesting. However, what if a 4th option is involved? It is pretty easy to make a supposed God or gods look silly when you lay the groundwork as 1,2,3…and say “look, God didn’t choose 1, so He’s not God.” Have you ever considered that the existence of evil (as so defined by Christianity) or the obliteration of it at this very second is not all that God would be concerned with?

The Bible speaks of the evils we currently suffer not as arbitrary, but as a direct consequence of sin. This means an understanding of divine justice is necessary, even though you may see it as ridiculous (being an atheist). Also, the Bible seems to speak of God’s greatest concern being His glory, not the sufferings of His creation. If through evil suffered, God is glorified more, shouldn’t He as God seek His own glory? To put the relief of evil above the honor of Himself would be idolatry, in which case He couldn’t be the greatest possible being either.

Lastly, isn’t option 1, when looked at in a strictly logically way, contradictory? To have free will and to have no evil? That is like asking why God won’t make triangular squares. To prevent evil would mean to end free will in the way you have used it.

Let me know what you think. Be honest, I really am interested in your thoughts. Thanks so much.
-Aaron

Aaron,

“Have you ever considered that the existence of evil (as so defined by Christianity) or the obliteration of it at this very second is not all that God would be concerned with?”

Some people go this route to say there are higher order goods achieved which make the existence of evil justifiable. I think that is nearly impossible to justify, though. That leads us to say things like the holocaust actually makes the world in some sense a better place. That sounds monstrous to me.

“This means an understanding of divine justice is necessary, even though you may see it as ridiculous (being an atheist). Also, the Bible seems to speak of God’s greatest concern being His glory, not the sufferings of His creation. If through evil suffered, God is glorified more, shouldn’t He as God seek His own glory?”

Justice and punishment of sin would not be required under option 1, so that doesn’t really matter. I’ll also point out that Hell as punishment for sin hardly seems just if the traditional notion of Hell is correct.

Your second point in this quote gets us into another problem of coherence with Christian beliefs. If God is defined as all-loving (or as loving as possible), then what you’ve described contradicts that definition. Additionally, love is considered one of the great-making properties that Plantinga uses to get us to this greatest possible being conception, so you would be robbing God of an essential ingredient. God would not be as loving as possible.

“Lastly, isn’t option 1, when looked at in a strictly logically way, contradictory? To have free will and to have no evil?”

I don’t think it’s logically impossible at all. And more importantly, most Christians don’t really think so if that’s how they view Heaven. To simplify, though, let’s just consider one specific evil - murder. I do not have a desire to murder. If I stay this way, then that means I will never intentionally commit murder (for reasons I won’t get into desires are part of what you need to motivate intentional actions). Even though I don’t have this desire, I still make what are called “morally significant” free choices. So, it seems completely possible that everyone could lack this desire to commit murder (and it wouldn’t be God forcing us into anything because we don’t choose our desires anyway) and we would still have a world with morally significant free will. You can imagine it as this exact world, but subtract the murders.

Now, do you think that is an objectively better world? If your answer is yes, then the argument still works.

Mike,

I think you make some interesting points. However, I would like to say that I am in no way saying that the holocaust was a good thing. Neither would I say that God gave it hearty approval. One thing your argument lacks is an understanding of God’s character as so described in the Bible. In cases such as the one presented, not only His qualities but also His character are important. The assumption which many make (which doesn’t necessarily follow) is that the allowance for evil automatically means God is evil for allowing it. God surely is in control over evil and uses evil actions of men to bring His will to completion. Evil took Christ to a bloody cross. Knowing why God chose to do exactly everything just as He has would require searching His very mind. If we could totally understand everything He would not be God. This may appear on the surface to be a cop-out, but it is a fact. No one will ever know everything about God. That’s part of the point.

Secondly, although your argument is based upon evil as so defined within Christianity, it is evident that you share 95-99% of an agreement (I’m estimating of course) with me as to what constitutes evil. You may reword it if you like; “good” or “bad,” “right” or “wrong” even “advantageous” and ” disadvantageous” if you like. This involves your worldview as well, not just mine. If you could explain why it is right to do one thing or another given your worldview, that would be helpful for me to understand why you believe atheism can have a coherent ethical worldview to accompany it.

Robbing God of His love is obviously not something i’d set out to do. One should be careful not to make him or herself judge over constitutes “love” in this case. In most cases (although I don’t know everything you have in mind) people, even Christians, have a very skewed view of what love is that can come down to God doing what they think He ought to do. Surely God is love. But this does not come at the sacrifice of His other attributes. The Bible also speaks of different degrees of love between human beings, and between God and His creatures. I love my enemy, and I love my wife. But I do not love my enemy like I love my wife. If so, then my love for my wife is meaningless in a certain sense, and the relational difference between my enemy and my wife with me becomes pointless. The two are indeed different. So God loves His creation, but humans more so than trees and rocks, and Himself above all. This is not a lack of love, but rather correctly ordered loves.

Lastly, a”better world” may not result in the “best world” but in the murder case refers to an immediate improvement we all can agree upon..not the best world. Your view seems to be that “the best conditions constitute the best world.” That does not follow, and is similar to saying, “the best 5 basketball players make the best team.” The presence of evil therefore shows the world is imperfect..but not that it is made by a malevolent God.

Thanks for all your input, I appreciate that you think, instead of just saying “you’re and idiot because you reject evolution and believe in Jesus.” I know both sides engage in name calling on a frequent bases, so again, thank you for thought provoking responses. I look forward to hearing from you, and would love to hear your input about hell. Also, what do you believe about Jesus? Who do you think He was/is? (If you believe He exists)

-Aaron

Aaron,

You said:

“If you could explain why it is right to do one thing or another given your worldview, that would be helpful for me to understand why you believe atheism can have a coherent ethical worldview to accompany it. ”

What do you mean, exactly, by “a coherent ethical worldview”, and what makes you believe that an atheist cannot have one?

Ryan,

The problem of ethics within the atheistic worldview is not necessarily that an atheist must come up with a moral code, or prove to theists that there is a meaning to life etc. etc. When I say coherent I mean internally consistent. This does not only mean on paper (i.e. a well written argument) but how atheists live day by day. Atheism asserts that God/gods do not exist, therefore everything about morality must be subjective to human judgment. The question is not whether atheists can come up with a moral code or not, but why they live by one at all. Asserting that some actions are morally preferrable over others is non-sensical if morality does not exist apart from what we construct it to be in our minds. My moral code could be different from yours, and terms such as “good,” “evil,” or any variations of vocabulary which fit these terms do not exist in reality. Science cannot prove them to exist. They are constructs that are not only unnecessary, but binding to us as humans. With this in mind, it would be much more consistent for the atheist to say that murder is not right, and is not wrong. As human beings we are matter, and strictly matter only. We are highly organized and complex, but ultimately there is no difference between us and a comet, a planet, a rock or a tree. Intellectually of course, there is a difference, but just as it is not immoral to crush a rock to bits, it is could not possibly be immoral to kill a human…because they are only matter, and that is all they ever were, or will be. They came together, and due to entropy will fall back out of existence again.

With all of this in mind the question is….why do atheists act as if morality exists and that there is a distinction between good and evil in the world? And, why does this distinction basically tend to agree in almost every way with all of humanity, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof? Such a distinction is foolish apart from God defining these things.

So, I believe an atheist cannot have a coherent ethical worldview because most of them violate it every day when they wake up and show by their actions that they value human beings more than other things, and affirm that things such as stealing are wrong. This means that while I have less respect for a nihilist, I do believe they live much more consistently with what they say.

Aaron,

Before I decide if this is worth pursuing with you, I have to ask you some follow-up questions: How does God’s existence enable objective (or absolute) ethics, inherent value, and so on? How does the theist reliably come to know these values?

Aaron,

I think I can reply to much of what you say by pointing you to this article: http://anamericanatheist.org/2011/09/27/atheism-and-evil-part-2/

It’s a very high level sketch, but it addresses your concerns and should be a good starting point for discussion. This post just doesn’t get into those things, since it doesn’t depend on any coherence from me.

All I’m saying about the two worlds is that the world where no one desires to commit murder is surely better than our current world. I don’t know of anyone who would deny this. I also claim this lack of desire can be realized without affecting any free choices. If that is the case, then I can make my argument.

The gist of all this is that the free will defense is not adequate to rebut the problem of evil and its companion arguments. The free will defense my work well for certain aspects, but it cannot be a complete defense.

As a side note, I don’t really have time to get into it right now, but I disagree with much of what you said to Ryan. Thomas Nagel has already brilliantly countered this idea that significance requires some ultimate or eternal significance. And I think Shelly Kagan has already countered the idea that being made of the same basic components means we are the same or should not be regarded differently. Pretty much any old theory of value will account for these things without any reference to a divine being.

By the way, while we’re questioning whether one lives according to their own worldviews, I wonder if I might ask a few questions.

How much of your time do you spend reading the Bible? As the revelation of God to mankind, I would want to be reading this as much as possible.

How closely do you adhere to the teachings of Jesus? If we had a reliable copy of the words spoken by God himself as he walked among us, I would be sure to follow those to the letter.

Do you ever sin over something petty and unimportant, like a white lie? If I really thought Hell was a live possibility, I would never risk that punishment over such a minor thing.

Perhaps most people aren’t really convinced of these things.

Mike,

I read the evil article parts 1 &2, and while I don’t feel you truly have demonstrated what I asked for you to demonstrate (althought it seems you feel it has already been said by others, as my argument has undoubtedly been stated before as well) I think we must agree to disagree on the issue.

As for my personal life, I read the Bible daily and pray, and I always try to share the truth of the gospel with someone. This does not mean I talk to non-Christians everyday. The Bible is very clear that Christians need to hear the gospel as much as non-Christians. There are other things such as fasting, giving money, helping the poor, serving, and meditation which I try to regularly engage in.

However, Christianity is not about externally doing these things. Surely these things are avenues which God uses to reveal things to His people, and make them more Christ-like, but they themselves are of no benefit if they are done for the mere completion of the action. The result should be to be more Christ-like. Without this in mind, people tend to find church boring and prayer/Bible reading very much filled with drudgery.

The Bible is very clear that hell is not a possibility for someone who has authentic faith in Christ. Christianity does not teach salvation by doing good things. Men teach this line of thought, as well as Islam, Mormonism, JW’s, etc. One thing that sets Christianity apart from other religions is that works are not involved in one’s salvation. This is not to say that works are not involved in Christianity, but rather that they do not result in salvation. Salvation comes by receiving Jesus’ perfect righteous life which is accredited to the believer on his or her behalf in the eyes of God.

Of course, I have committed numerous sins today, and will again tomorrow. Sin is something I used to think I could measure, keep tabs of, and identify tangibly along the way every time it happened. Anyone who has this understanding of sin does not fully know how much they sin. It is not about individual actions that one can pick out, it is about a heart state when things happen, and when words are said.

Of course I try to adhere to all of the teachings of Jesus. Some are divided on many things (For example, are just-wars okay or not?) but in general most Christians agree on what they are. Living them out is easily said, more difficultly done. Anyone can say that His teachings are great, fewer crucify their desires and follow Him. I am far from following His teachings as I ought to, and I always will be. That is what makes the gospel far greater than anything one could know.

Lastly you’re right. Many Christians or people who claim the name deny the existence of hell. Now, it doesn’t make much sense to me because the Bible clearly speaks of it as a literal destination for people. And perhaps others sin not because they aren’t convinced of its reality, but because all people have a tendency to an out of sight out of mind mentality that makes it difficult to bear in mind that hell exists. It is hard to live in light of something you’ve never phsycially seen. The Christian struggles with this daily.

Hope this helps, if you are truly interested.

Ryan,

If God exists, then humans have inherent value if they are made in His image. What does that even mean though? This is not just God saying He values us. There is something about our created design that makes us intrinsically valueable apart from God externally saying He values us (although He does). But how? To be made in the image of God is a tricky phrase, and hard to pin down for many. The Bible speaks of humans as God’s representatives on the Earth over His creation. God commands people to have babies (that process sounds like fun) in the Bible and “fill the earth.” Keep with me, this really does tie in. Since man represents God, wherever man is, God’s authority is represented. Hence, God wanted Adam and Eve to multiply, because all of their offspring would also be direct vice-regents on God’s behalf displaying His governance over the Earth. To be a direct representative of the greatest being in the universe (unlike animals) sets us apart from anything else and I would argue gives us an intrinsic value (even apart from God saying He values us).

Secondly, if God exists, then morality would be absolute for a few reasons. First, God does declare what is moral and immoral, but it is not simply based on a “might makes right” principle. (Although I would argue that if He is God, He would not lie, so if He truly said it, then it must truly be good (or bad), because He would not lie…but then again that assumes lying is wrong doesn’t it? )

From eternity what is “good” must have always been “good” and “bad” was always “bad.” However, it is wrong to say that these concepts preceded God, or that He looked at them and chose good over bad. If He is timeless and unchanging He must Himself have always been good and not bad. In this sense, good and bad have eternally existed (at least in the mind of God). Morality is absolute because it is based on who God has been from eternity. This is was neither conjured nor is it God arbitrarily choosing to command us not to lie when He could have commanded us to lie. Bad things are the things that inaccurately reflect who God is, indeed who He has always been. Lying is wrong, not because God just decided that it was, but because He would never do it as the greatest being. Similarly, God would never commit idolatry, murder, steal, or covet, because to do so would be to show a discontentment with who He is in His own very being, which would be insane.

Mike,

As for the murder argument, I cannot agree that a world with out murder would necessarily be a better world. You are proposing something that you do not know the full effects of on the world. I think everyone can agree that murder is wrong and that eliminating every act of murder would be good in and of itself. However, the totality of what that would do to the world, is something that no one could possibly foresee, therefore it is not possible to make an assertion about the world as whole being better due to lack of murder. But I do agree we could both say that in and of itself murder is evil and the absence of murder is a good thing.

Secondly, the fact that your position is built around this arguement shows something about your line of thought. Even though you have tried to come across the lines of Christian thought to show it inconsistent, your idea of what it means to have a better world is directly and exclusively dictated by how things relate to and affect human beings. This shows that the universe is man-centered to you rather than God-centered, which is not a good basis for making assertions, especially within Christian thought.

I can’t access the Internet from my computer unforunately, so I’ll have to respond later. Perhaps you could tell me what specifically you disagree with in my outline of how there can be secular moral realism accounting for objective truths.

I got my connection back. Here is my response:

So, I reread your comment and see that you want to agree to disagree about whether I can account for an actually objective secular foundation for morality. That’s fine. We can leave it as it’s actually not important for the problem of heaven or for the coherence point.

The idea of incoherence should not really be applied to a fact/behavior distinction, but should instead be applied to a belief/behavior distinction. If it were the former, you would have to say the disciples lived incoherent lives because they acted as if the earth was the center of the universe. What you really want to nail down is whether we betray our beliefs with our behavior. I think on these grounds, the atheist is actually in quite a superior position. That’s due to the same reasons that people find Pascal’s wager appealing. Quite simply, the force of infinity is overwhelming in any measure of probability. Since the punishment is so terrible and the reward so great, the lackluster way in which people go about their lives WRT religion I think is inconsistent with stated belief. For example, my parents claim to really believe I am going to Hell, but they don’t really do anything about it. Can you imagine?

All of that is not so important to me, though. I’m simply saying the tables about how we live can be turned here quite effectively as even Christians admit that Christians in general do not behave consistently (backsliding was a term popular in my younger Evangelical days).

On to murder. I’ll recognize that there are reasons to say it is indeterminable how the world would be different from our current perspective, but let me make a quick argument in favor of it being better:

It is a sin and God desires for us to lessen (maybe even eliminate?) sin and anything that God desires is good.

I also think this claim that it would have a net negative impact is going to be very difficult to defend. I assume it means we may lose out on some higher order goods. I think to take that claim seriously, you would have to actually name some. Then, of course, I can come back and give further scenarios, and on and on. So, I think there is a very good reason from the Christian perspective to say it is better and I think the reasons against actually just lead to unclear assertions.

Finally, my idea of morality is not human-centered, but consciousness-centered. I think a theory of morality is a subset of a theory of value and any theory of value requires consciousness. No Christian can deny this as God would be conscious and, if God were not, then there would be no morality, right (maybe there wouldn’t be anything at all)?

Aaron,
While your questions are worth considering, but when you said:

” I am having trouble seeing how anything could be coherent from the atheist worldview”

I do have an objection to make (but nothing personal): Atheism is NOT a specific/singular uniformed world-view like Christianity. Atheism is a disagreement that consists in a rejection or lack of a Theistic world-view (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) that is found in sets of pluralistic spectrum of world-views that satisfies that basic qualification. What this means is that any world-view that does not consider God as 1) existing and 2) having central role can qualify as being Atheistic; Budhism, Jainism, Hinduism (assuming that it is a specific form of Hinduism such as Advaita), Taism, Metaphysical Naturalism (or materialism), Communism, and Secular Humanism are all types of world-views that can be qualified as atheistic.

To use an analogy here, to say that one is a non-republican is simply saying that one has a political ideology or opinion that is absent (or rejects) any central ideas/values that pertains to a republican party (conservatism); Anarchism, Socialism, Social Libertarianism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Communism, etc, can all be considered as non-republican or non-conservative political ideologies.

My problem is with your statement that asserting morality and atheism is incoherent is problematic when you consider what the term “Atheism” can mean in the broader sense. Certainly if you study Buddhism, Toaism, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, Naturalism, and other world-views they at least provide an alternative a basis for morality (although not all of them will have absolute basis). So, in this light of context, to argue that to reject God is to reject the absolute basis of morality (while plausible) would not really apply to these atheistic world-views; From an atheistic point of view, it is simply denying God as an explanation for our moral beliefs, in favor of other alternative explanations for the possibility of morality.

To be sure, when you talked about Atheism you are trying to refer to a specific group or individuals of atheists, such as Mike.

People like Mike presumably do not belong to any of the listed world-views that are Atheistic, but belong to the kind that likes to incorporate Naturalism and other ethical theories. People like Mike will obviously not appeal to God as a source of morality, but that does not mean that Mike lacks a basis for morality. There are many ethical/moral philosophers who are Atheists such as Peter Singer, John Stuart Mill, Kai Nielsen, David Hume, Corlis Lamont, Baron d’Holbach, and A.C. Grayling (some of these philosophers also focus on other branches of philosophy). They all appeal to different ethical theories that explains what the basis of morality is.

Also, just because they are atheists, doesn’t mean they belong to a community called Atheism; there is no such thing because Atheism, again, just implies a lack or rejection of theistic belief-system. The implication or consequence of this implication, however, is not as narrow as you might think; there are wide-spectrum of implications ranging from moral nihilists (Nietzsche, Foucault, Mackie, and other atheist philosophers are known to be nihilistic) to moral objectivist (Sam Harris, Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer, etc).

I say this emphatically: Do not group individual atheists together as if they belong to the same community; Atheism denotes a pluralistic spectrum of world-views and individuals with different opinions on politics, morality, economy, etc, but they all agree that they lack or reject the theistic belief system, and God does not play a central role in human life.

I hope this reply helps Aaron.

Aaron,
To specify little bit more here on the meaning of “Atheism”, I think Mike would be a Naturalistic Atheist. Toaism, Buddhism, Advita Hinduism, and other forms of Atheism(s) are simply a rejection/lack of a specific supernatural monotheism. Naturalistic Atheist is someone who not only denies (or lacks the belief) that God exists, but denies any supernatural explanation (Ghost, Witches, Tao, Karma/Rebirth, Brahma, Angels, etc.) in favor of the Natural Explanations (Laws of Gravity, Conservation of Matter/Energy, Theory of Relativity, Evolution, etc). Some Naturalistic Atheist can go so far as to say only Nature exists, and nothing supernatural exists.

Just want to point that out.

Philonous,

I did not mean to group all atheists together. Generally speaking, people in industrialized, western cultures fit atheism in the sense of a naturalistic sense. I didn’t feel the need to specify that, and am sorry if I was unclear or unfair in no doing so.

To all of you all,

I respect all of you for one critical reason. You are able to apply yourselves and have reasons for why you believe what you do. I may not have come to the same conclusions that you all have, (due to different presuppositions and prior beliefs, as well as that fact that what sounds convincing to one person may not be convincing to another) but thank you all for your thoughts. I believe at this point I could again articulate why I still believe there are reasons why naturalistic atheism is inconsistent and insufficient to explain certain things (although insufficiency of explanation does NOT make something necessarily false) and you all would be able to say why you still are convinced that it is totally legitimate. I don’t think it would be at this point beneficial to keep evaluating opposing frameworks. We have both been able to convince ourselves of our own worldviews using rational thought and reason. Coupled with these things naturalistic thinkers usually use science, as well as theists (although only to a certain extent, because there is not direct scientific evidence of God in a way that can be “falsified” as so defined by science). We haven’t however, convinced one another of our worldviews. I would also like to point out that just as lack of explanation in a worldview does not make necessarily false, consistency in a worldview does not make it necessarily true.

To Mike,

I do wholeheartedly believe that there is a hell and real people go there for a real eternity. I know it is true that not all Christians are out buzzing about it, and I think there are a few reasons why. First, you are correct. Some Christians are simply not serious about their faith, or are cultural Christians, which usually means that they grew up attending church or that they aren’t Muslims, Buddhists, or anything else…so “Christian” is their default answer. This is bad, both for them and for Christianity, as well as people outside of it who want to know what Christianity really is, regardless of whether they want to be a Christian or not. However, there are other reasons as well. Our culture has developed in such a way so as to condemn those who mention hell, (which is quite ironic). Christians have been conditioned to not mention it and are told their entire lives that they are rude and inconsiderate if they do. There is an appropriate way to go about it, but it is not something to pretend is not real, at least not if one wants to follow the Bible faithfully. Thirdly, Christians have to think about what is effective. In my days in college, a man regularly came to campus and preached. He warned people of hell and was genuine and passionate about it. He really believed it. I don’t think in my 4 years there I ever once saw someone run up and repent. He drove people away more than anything. Lastly, talking about hell all the time makes people believe that Christianity is only about escaping hell. That is simply false. Even though a Christian will not suffer hell, Christianity is not only about a difference in ultimate destinations.

Aaron,

There is much that I would like to address, but I can’t keep up with three different conversations. Instead, I’ve picked out three points:

1.) You wrote,

“One thing that sets Christianity apart from other religions is that works are not involved in one’s salvation.”

To be fair, Christianity also sets up the need for salvation in the first place. Buddhists and Hindus, for example, have their own sort of salvation related to rejecting attachments because they are the cause of suffering. Less popular religions may not include the need for any kind of salvation at all. This is not a very important point in the context of the larger discussion here, but many people make your claim without seeming to recognize that, although it may be a unique quality to Christianity, it is only important within the context of religions like Christianity anyway. Now, to more important matters.

2.) You wrote,

“Lying is wrong, not because God just decided that it was, but because He would never do it as the greatest being.”

Isn’t this circular? (You might have recognized this, but just in case you didn’t, I’ll continue.) I would still ask: why would he never do it? It sounds to me like we are simply defining what is right or wrong based on God’s actions, which we then declare to be good, which leads to the loop. If we can agree that there is no way to actually know what is right or wrong in this worldview except through God’s words and actions (even the fruit in the garden was created by God), we are faced with a problem: we cannot really judge God because God itself would define our standards for judgment. I’ve claimed elsewhere that it is difficult to show Christians a problem with their religion and just as difficult for the Christian to convince the atheist that it is true because of its circular arguments and unfalsifiable claims. This seems to be one of those cases. I think it would be more honest to say that even morality in Christianity is subjective. In fact, I hold that morality is subjective by definition, which leads me to the next point.

3.) In response to your very first (and too long to completely quote) reply to me, concerning the apparent inconsistency within a naturalistically atheistic worldview that asserts a moral code:

I consider it a matter of practicality. We are imperfectly rational, typically self-interested animals, born into a world where we must interact with each other. It makes no sense to allow murder and theft, as these behaviors undermine the group and thus its advantages: stability, cooperation, safety and survival, meaningful relationships, etc. Morality, then, is premised on the desire for these things, which in turn makes it subjective. But insofar as that desire is shared among humans, the practical problems of subjectivity are mitigated. The few who kill and steal (and so on) are punished in this worldview ultimately because they represent a threat to civilization, which is in turn a threat to individuals.

That is only the start, of course. We then have to determine how far we extend our moral code: does it apply to the human fetus? animals? alien species? sentient robots? It is common for the atheist to assert consciousness and/or the ability to feel pain as the standard. To someone accustomed to a theistic perspective of morality, it may seem like this is an assertion of inherent value in conscious life. But it is really just an extension of the practical morality inherent to the golden rule. There may be no possibility of animals rising against us if we consume them, but we see value in respecting them just as we see value in respecting each other. Over time, as this behavior is taught, people may come to regard it as “just so” morality and associate it with inherent value because that concept is simpler. But there is a more extensive philosophical case for it that is consistent with atheism.

Disagreement among us is still possible. On the subject of animals, many of us may assert that our evolved behavior of meat consumption and the need for its nutrients somehow outweigh the moral “imperative” against killing them. But as our technology makes it easier to live without meat (alternatives are just as good or better for you, taste better, etc.), whatever value this argument has should quickly vanish. Our behaviors should indeed change as new doors open.

Mike and I have a certain affinity for at least aspects of the ethical philosophy of John Rawls because he claims that we can theoretically determine the best social structure by selecting principles behind a “veil of ignorance” in the “original position.” I’ll leave you to look these terms up if you aren’t familiar with them already. I offer it simply as another example for you; I personally find too many problems with it to seriously defend it even though I appreciate its theoretical approach.

I could also have simply said: everything is pre-determined; you ask me why we think and act the way we do, I respond a certain way-all because it must be so. Or I could have brought up some compelling evolutionary psychology as an explanation for our behavior. Either of these would be consistent with naturalistic atheism, but they can only describe behavior, not prescribe it. As much as evolutionary theory intrigues me, it is at best supplemental to ethical philosophy (particularly for utilitarianism, whose appetite for information is never sated).

If I had to reduce the overall message of the above to a single sentence, it would be this: the problems you bring up are only troubling to those who premise morality on some mystical properties of the universe, not to those who premise it on interaction among conscious beings.

One last point on this line of thought, and I hope you won’t mistake my liberal use of “you” here as combativeness:

Theists face the practical problems of subjective morality too. Even within the same religion, you don’t all agree on precisely what is good or bad, though many of you like to think that you alone have determined what is true. From the common Christian to the theologian, from the I-know-in-my-heart-that-it’s-true approach to genuine philosophy, you have fought amongst yourselves as much as or more than you have against other religions and atheism. You are all human like the rest of us, subject to the same cognitive biases and emotions and early-years indoctrination. And they manifest in your various interpretations of the Bible. Even if there could be some objective moral code, you all disagree about what it is on just about everything except the basic moral principles (murder, theft, rape, etc.) of any functional system, including secular humanism. But insofar as you believe these rules to be absolute, you take a step beyond most atheists who are similarly caught up in subjectivity: you declare your own rules above all others and beyond all argument. Perhaps God exists, but most conceptions of it are simply the exalted Self.

Aaron,

Also, I’m aware that many people object to the calculating nature of the perspective I presented (a common criticism of anything remotely utilitarian/consequentialist), but those objections typically come from deontologists and moral absolutists with the sort of moral code you present. I can’t please everyone! At best, I can attempt to account for their justifiable concerns by offering rule-utilitarianism over plain old utilitarianism. Rules and rights are essential to social stability, which is essential to the maximization of happiness.

I’ll just add to Philonous’s comment that I am in fact a naturalist, as described by Paul Draper: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/naturalism.html