I have noticed a pattern in the arguments of the “New Atheists” that goes something like this:
Atheist Argument: “There are things we do for the welfare of mankind and this makes them right and wrong.”
Theist Response: “But without and objective source, and given the matter/energy makeup of the universe, there cannot be ‘welfare’ or ‘right and wrong’. After all, if it would have been more advantageous to the human race for Hitler to win would it have been ‘right’? etc. ad infinitum”
Atheist Response To Theist Response: “There are things we do for the welfare of mankind and this makes them right and wrong.”
In other words the atheist response is no response. If I could get something like, “The universe is meaningless as are our lives, but we create ‘meaning’ out of nothing as a safety net for our psyche much the same way that Christians do by belief in God.” At least at this point we would be getting somewhere. Then we could begin to explore the psyche etc. and try to answer the questions that arise from that point. As it is we just keep going in circles.
At this point I am often confronted with questions about the veracity of the Bible and other particulars of the Christian faith (which I am happy to discuss), but before these matters can be discussed in a meaningful way it is necessary for the atheist to step up and live the intellectually honest lives they claim to live.
When the atheist is willing to admit the utter meaninglessness of the universe and of their lives with the resultant removal of objectively based moral values the discussion can move on. After all, it is possible to be an atheist while at the same time accepting the fact that life without a Creator is meaningless, and all that remains is experience. Of course this ultimtely leads to Nihilism and nobody wants that. So, “There are things we do for the welfare of mankind and this makes them right and wrong.”
It appears you are trying to point out the self refuting nature of the position. How does matter/energy know objective reality enough to define right/wrong?
Pointing out self refuting arguments is great and all and although I believe you are correct when you try to question “right and wrong” with an atheist, many times it does become a circular argument. I believe the question falls flat even without necessarily invoking its self refuting nature.
I would reply, saying that yes, “properly” and “judiciously” managed, eugenics would help mankind but it is always wrong because it tramples the rights of the individual.
So the atheist has a choice to a) accept my position and agree that individuals have rights or b) come up with another reason why eugenics is wrong or c) go ahead and say eugenics is right because it’s a thing we can do for the welfare of mankind.
No matter what the response, I have made more progress in the discussion than someone who merely points to the self refuting nature of the argument. I can always call it quits when I’m tired of the discussion by asking what objective sources inform his current position. Just a different approach.
Comment by Anthony Martin — August 4, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
This is another approach often used, and the end result is the same. In the end you end up with an atheist that affirms the “wrongness” of eugenics without providing a basis for that wrongness within his worldview.
Comment by Aaron Jackson — August 4, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Case in point.
Comment by Anthony Martin — August 5, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Atheistic counterpoint.
Comment by Anthony Martin — August 6, 2008 @ 9:58 am