This is something new I've been noticing... It might not be something that is likely to apply to a modern atheist with a fairly solid philosophical background, that is to say, it's not likely to apply to any kind of influential person who just so happens to not believe in God and to therefore build his or her work on that claim, or lack thereof if you will, although I'd have to put a little pin on that because I'm inclined to believe that some influential atheists were and are indeed delusional about morality, perhaps Christopher Hitchens being number one and maybe Ricky Gervais being number two. However, and trying to sort of avoid that confrontation, at least for now, I'm at this present time more interested in talking a little bit about the logic and general argumentation deployed by the everyday atheists who will more or less claim that they don't need a god telling them what's right and wrong, and that whoever does need it is stupid or even evil at heart. That sort of reasoning is one I used to proclaim quite vehemently, but that now, having seen so many flaws in my own atheism, and in atheism in general, I find it a very stupid thing to say. And that is because as much as we like to believe we are deeply intelligent, that we are so special and unique, which we aren't, that we are so fearfully and wonderfully made, we are actually animals, and as such we do kinda need someone or something telling us what to do, pressuring us to be good. Otherwise we'd do whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, however we wanted. That would obviously shatter society soon enough but, philosophically speaking, what would be so bad about that?
The way I see it, that's the delusion. It's a useful delusion, mind you, because if we all lived like every day is our last we wouldn't get any work done. Problem is though, one day we will live our last day, even our entire species will. Nobody cries for the dead dinosaurs, nobody considers their extinction an immoral act, so why would our death be immoral or even just plain sad? Where does all this existentialism come from?... While every day is one in which you could die, you will only die one day, so if you live thirty thousand days you're way up on the betting odds. It's like winning thirty thousand rounds of blackjack to lose only one. Trouble is, that one loss will inevitably come, and afterwards, since you'll cease to exist, none of your winnings will matter. Not to you at least because you won't be around to enjoy them, you won't get to attend your own funeral nor will you be able to take your riches with you when you go. But the bigger trouble still is that those thirty thousand days, which round off to roughly eighty-two years, aren't even guaranteed. Nobody expects to die, or if they do they expect to die of old age, because nobody expects to die unceremoniously when crossing the street, or to die an ironic peanut allergy death, or a sick, criminal death by being lured into Ted Bundy's car... Nobody expects it but it has happened to some people, so why are you so sure it won't happen to you? Because in the words of Jo Stafford, it could happen to you.
Yes, it probably won't... maybe. But I paint that picture to explain my inability to understand how a fellow atheist, who more or less believes the things I've said, because they appear to be reasonable things to believe in, nonetheless still claims some sort of moral superiority and some sort of rejection of pessimism. They often claim that the need for God in order to be a good person is a crutch and it's something that, were it to disappear, most people would fall into wanton chaos and overindulgence. I'm reminded of how in my new favorite debate, between the secular humanist Matt Dillahunty and the sociopathic christian David Wood, atheists in the comment section were talking about how they hope David never loses his faith in christianity because he'd inevitably go back to being an evil man. And therein lies the question... Because if you see the religious need some people have in order to be moral, why don't you see that need in yourself? Why does the average atheist appear to see himself as a good person who tries his best based on the absolute superiority of his reason, while the rest of us are barely scrapping to get by without going on a daily rampage? Well, from where I'm sitting the answer is delusion mixed with some comfort, because atheists who claim such a thing, I'm betting, aren't really faced with true evil, not really...
I'm reminded of a news story I once read, of a man who went on a long hike with his dog and got lost. After a few days he was close to starving to death and so he had to kill and eat his dog, which bought him enough time and energy to survive and make it out of the woods. I remember some people were very upset at this story, saying they'd rather die than to kill their own dog, to which some other people replied something along the lines of – Then you never truly experienced hunger... In so many words that's what I mean by delusion and comfort. The modern atheist's morality is seemingly based on a plateau of human reason, but just where is that plateau resting on? Where's the foundation? Because the slightest bump and the whole thing comes crashing down... In accepting biology, in accepting human nature as animal nature, atheists also want to, when convenient, forget our most animalistic tendencies... I say that because it's very easy and seemingly recurrent for some atheists to claim most or even all instances of immorality are a result of indoctrination, namely religious indoctrination, with Christopher Hitchens considering religion to be the source of all evil. And when evil came from a non-religious source, that source was instead deemed to actually be ultra-religious instead, so you couldn't ever win that bet... Other atheists go so far as to claim human beings are inherently good by appealing to the innate goodness of children, apparently unaware that children can actually display some real sociopathic tendencies and they need to be taught to be good. Just because a baby is cute don't mean he's a beacon of moral goodness, and anyone who read about the death of James Bulger will have a clue of just how evil children can be... So where does this come from, this atheistic optimism in human nature? I see no source other than delusion, it comes from having blinders on all throughout their lives. Because it's very easy to shut your world down and look at only what you come across, it's very easy to live in a nice part of town, surrounded by friendly neighbors, and then you go to university and live surrounded by like-minded people who are all so good it makes you believe people are inherently good as well, and then you go on vacation to another rich part of town and all the locals there in your five-star resort are so good it overwhelms your godless heart... But what would happen if all those circumstances simply vanished? What would happen if society collapsed? Where would you place your flag of morality?
Atheists would have no place on which to do so because, whether we like it or not, we live in a world built on two thousand years of christian teachings. Even if you are convinced christianity is false and that its ideas can be found in previous systems of thought, the truth is still that it was christianity that had the force to implement them in the world. Maybe you find that to be contingent, maybe you believe that if it hadn't been christianity to do so it would have been some other religion just as easily. That's all fine and dandy with me, but the point remains that, to steal from Isaac Newton, you stand on the shoulders of giants, and your faith in the innate goodness of people only avoids being shallow because you're getting away with moral hypocrisy. In other words, you get to criticize the lost hiker who killed and ate his dog because you're sitting at home, with a kitchen full of food and a pantry full of dog food. Your sense of morality is entirely based on your contingent circumstances, and as soon as those change, so will you, you will be forced to commit violence, and should you fail to do so, you will be forced to suffer violence. That's just nature... Either the lion kills and eats the zebra, or the zebra kicks the lion in the face and breaks his jaw. Only difference is that, due to the violent history on which our values rest, as well as due to human ingenuity, we find ourselves living in a time and place where that sort of violence tends to be minimized. But what if it all suddenly changed? Because society is a cradle, it's equal parts comfortable and safe... and frail.
What then stops the sociopath? Himself? Unlikely since, like everyone else, he'd rather spend his limited existence in this world doing whatever makes him happy, which is subjective so you're really nobody to tell him that he's wrong... Society? It would depend because over time society tends to change its mind too, and even if the sociopath's wishes are deemed immoral, he won't care... The law? That's a strong deterrent for most but he might consider that the possibility of being caught, imprisoned or even executed is worth the gamble... Logic and reason? Doubt it because what's illogical about a man doing what he wants to and enjoys? It's odd that his enjoyment comes at the cost of the well-being of others, but that ain't his problem, is it? And even still, what would logic and reason have to say about morality? Where do good, bad, better or worse play a role in a stone-cold logical or scientific argumentation? They kinda don't, it would appear that morality, almost by definition, is beyond the realm of science, and any naturalism used to explain it is bound to slip into the uglier side of nature, a side that anyone who's seen five minutes of any wildlife documentary can attest to. And the belief that humanity is somehow past all that, the idea that all that violence somehow no longer applies to us, it's such a silly idea that can only come either from the strange belief that we are made in the image of God, or the equally strange belief that somehow we are “non-animalistic” animals.
Comments
Post a Comment