Just before Christmas, my friend and fellow atheist Rick Wingrove shared on Facebook an article written by Pastor Rick Henderson on the Huff Post titled Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist. The Pastor attempts to use scientific logic to prove that without the belief in a supreme being, good and evil cannot exists, and therefore in the atheist’s mind, both sexual slavery of children, and a dog barking are of equal meaning or value.
These are his exact words:
A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained but never given any meaning or value.
Before I delve into the Pastor’s reasoning, I ask that you allow me a brief comment regarding my thought on logic and philosophy.
I consider logic and philosophy to be both important and serious disciplines. Far too often, however, these disciplines are misused by charlatans who denigrate philosophy and logic by turning them into silly word games, believing they are clever by presenting absurd ideas which cannot “logically” be disproved. An example of this is the idea of Bishop Berkeley that nothing material actually exists, it is all merely perceived, or imagined in our own mind. While it is in fact impossible to prove that Berkeley is wrong, entertaining such an idea is so absurd that by engaging in such useless banter, we insult the disciplines of logic and philosophy, and reduce it to impractical rubbish.
I state this view because Pastor Henderson is in fact misusing logic and reverts to such a silly word games while smugly proclaiming we cannot prove anything to be good or evil, without a supreme being.
Back to the Pastor’s claim of there being no “good” atheists.
First we must understand exactly what the Pastor’s argument entails. He is not claiming that atheists cannot be good people. He is claiming that it is impossible to be good at being an atheist. The claim is that no atheist does, or can live in a way that is consistent with the atheist “worldview.” In the process he manages to put fourth an extremely hateful, bigoted, and dehumanizing view of atheists.
At the end of his piece he reveals his true intentions for the piece, which is the conversion of the atheist to religion. As the Pastor puts it: “This new reality may launch you onto a journey of reluctant discovery.”
But the pastor does not present a “new reality,” he has merely repackaged an old idea that has long been presented to atheists to no avail. His argument in a nutshell goes like this:
There are three non-negotiable tenets of atheism;
Those three tenets make everything in the universe meaningless;
Therefore an atheist cannot believe there is good and evil;
Atheists who claim there is good and evil, therefore accept “objective morality,” and are not then “good” atheists;
So atheists should therefore search for a “worldview” worthy of their values.
So let’s look at three premises set fourth by the Pastor that, in his words, “Every expression of atheism necessitates at least three additional affirmations:”
1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).
2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.
3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will. [sic]
The conclusion drawn from three premises is, “Denial of any one of those three affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheism. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless.”
Before we proceed, go back and read his three “affirmations of atheism” again.
In the first paragraph of the story, the Pastor compares arguing against him to playing against a street hustler in Vegas. I actually agree with the Pastor that he is indeed nothing more than a street hustler playing a shell game under the guise of logic and philosophy.
But, I did almost fall for his trap. At first I was concentrating on words such as: universe, strictly material, observable, impersonal, consciousness and will. Yet as I pondered his three “affirmations,” I realized that all three premises were, in fact, redundant and said the same thing. So let’s look at the actual meaning of each of the Pastor’s three “affirmations:”
1. There is no god.
2. There is no god.
3. There is no god.
And while we are focusing on these three redundant affirmations, the tricky Pastor sneaks in his actual argument, that is “objective morality.” And this is the age old argument atheist have heard over and over again.
Now again the tricky Pastor continues his shell game by tossing in random quotes of people such as Richard Dawkins. This is nothing more than worthless ploy since atheists are no more obligated to follow or agree with such people, than the Pastor is bound to agree with statements of fellow believers such as Pat Robertson or the KKK.
The Pastor then attempts to demonstrate that morality cannot be the result of either “socio-biological” evolution, or logical. Here the Pastor shows his true hateful character by espousing that atheists can not only say that actions such as rape, and killing handicapped children, are wrong, but are actually condoned by us.
The pastor then uses the example of slavery as an example of how “it is impossible,” to show that slavery is wrong, without “presupposing morality.” And, of course, atheist “reject” objective meaning and morality, as the pastor earlier stated. So his argument against atheism now can be simplified to this:
Atheism does not allow for meaning nor morality, therefore an atheist who believes in good and evil is not a true, or “good” atheist.
Nice try Pastor.
While playing his logical words games the Pastor seeks to prove that slavery can be shown to be morally wrong if, and only if, “objective” morality exists. “Objective” means that something is true regardless of other considerations, or is not subjected to something else also being true. As the Pastor puts it, we cannot “presuppose” anything to support its truth. And without god, atheist cannot believe there is “objective morality,” or any meaning or morality, and the existence of god is essential to the existence of “objective morality.”
Here the Pastor completely destroys his own argument that “objective morality” exists. Using his example of slavery, we can only prove that slavery is wrong through the existence of morality, which is wholly dependent on the existence of a supreme being.
Therefore we must conclude this:
If a supreme being exists, slavery is wrong. However, if a supreme being does not exist, we cannot conclude that slavery is wrong, in the Pastor’s words, “it is impossible.”
Therefore the existence of “objective morality” is wholly dependent on, or subject to the existence of a supreme being. So it is in fact, “subjective morality,” and not at all objective, because it is not an absolute truth, but is dependent, and wholly dependent on the existence of a supreme being.
So the Pastor is saying that whether or not slavery itself is wrong, is very subjective.
The Pastor’s commentary was in many ways very disturbing, and sad to me. The idea that if tomorrow, it was somehow proven that no supreme being exists, the Pastor would then have no problem with killing handicapped children, or using children as sex slaves? The mere fact the one must believe in a god to know that these actions are wrong, is not at all evidence that a supreme being exists, but a demonstration of the depravity and moral bankruptcy of Pastor Rick Henderson.
Here is the Pastor's story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...