1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
It is possible for me to conceive a creator god that does not lose sleep over the way we live our lives. What makes my conception less plausible than the Christian God? My conception actually seems more plausible when we take our moral experiences into consideration. However, implied in the argument is the idea of a God who is the ground for moral values. This argument is found in the ontological argument that God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being. It is taken for granted that 'goodness' and 'existence' are great making qualities. Many, including myself, disagree with this wholeheartedly because 'great' is a subjective description of a thing and different people would have their own ideas of what makes a thing great. But hey, thank God that we have an accurate definition of God to work with.
Today, I make two arguments:
1) Divine Command Theory does not make morality objective.
2) Objective moral values do not seem to exist.
Wednesday, 18 July 2012
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
What is your name?
But, do you drink though? I know a cheap bar. |
There is the transitional stage where you are tempted to isolate yourself from everyone else. It seems as though we have a psychological bias toward believing we are alone in our existential problems. If fortunate enough to survive this desert period, we may happen across an online group of people who share unbelievably similar experiences with us. And so begins the adolescent idealism and group pride. We create an us vs them - us being the atheists, they, our enemies, theists. Fists are raised in the name of reason and war is waged on anything remotely resembling faith of any kind.
I am reminded of Erik Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. We enter unwillingly into these stages and we are not guaranteed to emerge in favourable psychological states. How we respond to all that each stage has to throw at us directly affects how well equipped we enter into the coming stage. For my fellow, heathens, how well have you been progressing?
I know an unfortunate few who have been atheists longer than I have, yet are more worked up about the thing than me, the newbie. I am not devoid of source material enough to burn fires of disgust and hatred toward religion myself after having been dealt an unfair hand by the godly institution. Though it was seldom been said to me directly, many believe that it is this unfair treatment that lead to my 'falling away' in the first place and not any intellectual reasons at all. I won't be naive or arrogant to say they are completely wrong. Still, they are not completely right. My conversion was the result of an unholy concoction of hurt and intellectual curiousity. Either way, I am here now and I do miss the emotional connections I had with the divine as a believer, but I cannot bring myself to bend a knee because I think doing so is foolish.
Some people may disagree with me and, of course, all are free to do so, but I no longer care for the label 'atheist.' Now, I find it and its definition tawdry, thin and glaringly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Atheism is simply non-belief in a deity/deities. An atheist feels the same way a Christian feels about Allah, just this feeling is directed toward all gods. This is apparently an unimaginable fact to people who see the world through the eyes of faith. Even though their bosom buddy may not believe in their own god, at least he/she believes in some god and that seems to be enough. But to believe in none is ludicrous. But what does it matter, really?
There is a sub-community within the atheism camp that advocates the proclamation of the title 'atheist' from the rooftops. I was never comfortable with it, but I was never against it either. Today, I am still not against it, but I have grown enough to distance myself from it. The word 'atheist' says nothing that I consider important about me or anyone else. After all, the basic idea behind atheism is that theism has not yet presented persuasive evidence for their claim that their gods exist. But to think that I only possess this attitude toward the divine is misleading and the title 'atheist' does not help in bringing clarity.
Here is what I think causes this problem. Theism can be narrowly defined as a belief in a deity/deities. However, a belief in a deity hardly ever comes independent of a host of other things, eg. morality, philosophy, history. It is to be expected, then, that although atheism narrowly defined is non-belief in a deity/deities, atheists are lumped together on matters of morality, philosophy and history as well. This I am afraid of.
I have a skeptical eye and I look at all claims within my reach under the microscope of reason. Both gods and fossils have to make sense to me before I have anything to say about them. I am concerned about the future of the world. Questions like, how would religion and non-belief co-exist? Should I really be against the death penalty? What is important and how do we know? Should I lend my hand in the development of Trinidad and Tobago? If so, what is the best way to do so? These seem vastly more important than which side I stand on the thin line of belief. 'Atheist' just does not seem to do an effective job in conveying so deep a commitment to reason. I'm certainly not afraid of the term and if asked whether I am an atheist I would respond positively. But what am I going to call myself? By what name do I go? Do I need a name? I grow tired of the politics and label-gerrymandering and just wish to go on reading and writing.
Call me whatever you like. Ask me, however, and you may be met with this standard response.
"I'm batman."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)