I saw an email come in today
from an old thread on another site. An atheist attacked a bunch of stuff I said
quite some time ago. He's sort of the perfect picture of why I've completely
abandoned Facebook and all the online discussion stuff. It is truly pointless
and can hardly be called edifying. We've reached a point in our cultural
dialogue that anything longer than a few lines is too much for people to
follow. It's just cyber-shouting and doing your best to insult the other person. In other words a waste of time and something
I no longer pursue.
This guy is one of these
typical characters you encounter that's not there to argue or discuss anything.
He's just there to call attention to himself, to try and show how clever he is
with a turn of phrase. He's not there to edify, clarify or help someone
understand an issue or a point of contention. He's simply trying to count coup
and gain a few seconds of attention by pretending to be John Stewart. It's an
easy enough trap to fall into I suppose.
Of course he wouldn't talk that
way to me if we were face to face. But, maybe he would. There are a lot of
people that seem to be all but handed over.
And for the record I will say
the things I say to a person's face, but I also try to employ some wisdom. It's
right and proper to 'tell it like it is'. I don't want to call attention to
me... but to witness to the truth of the matter. I have calmly stated my
opinion and on occasion had some people get very upset with me. It's
interesting though. If you're sober and speak with conviction it brings out a
different response. Sometimes it's offense but with a degree of respect.
Sometimes. Other times you get people who simply want to punch you in the face.
Most of this atheist's comments
were little more than rubbish but one thing hit me. He was trying to counter
the argument that nonbelievers have no basis for morality, a point I had made
earlier in the thread.
I honestly believe that if
you're not a Christian then Nihilism is really about the only rational option
there is. Everything else rests on some kind of unjustifiable or unverifiable
foundation. Non-Nihilists who reject Christianity have ultimately put their
faith into something in order to give life some kind of meaning.
Anyway he told some story about
how he bought some stuff at the store and upon leaving gave a couple of dollars
to a homeless guy.
If I'm right, he asserts, that
atheists have no basis for moral action, then why did he do that? He thinks
this really scores a point and it saddened me to read that other Christians (at
least according to him) couldn't account for his selfless action.
It's actually pretty simple and
I hope everyone who reads this already knows the answer.
If he's not motivated by some
kind of moral imperative, why would he as an atheist behave in such a way?
It's guilt.
Deep down this lost soul knows
that the world is broken and messed up. He can't explain it but even to him...it's
almost like it's under a curse! He can't account for it but wants to do
something so that he can feel better. Maybe if he's not too far gone he knows
that he too plays a part in why it's so messed up.
By throwing a few crumbs at
those who are at the bottom he can feel better about himself.
That's why he does it.
Is it good? Sure, in one sense.
But in terms of his
accountability to God his actions condemn him and will condemn him on the Day
of Judgment. It shows that he knows the world is in sin and that he too is a
sinner.
But does he repent? No. He
blasphemes.
Does he cry out for mercy? No,
he's defiant.
Does he seek truth? No, he
mocks.
His very act of kindness
reveals his guilt and makes him accountable. His deed is not 'good' because he
does it for his own motives, to glorify himself, to 'save' himself as it
were... by his own standard. It's not rooted in repentance and an attempt to
reconcile himself to God... by the standard and conditions that God Himself has
revealed and demands.
I have no idea if this guy will
read this. I hope he does. But sadly for him it will only add to his guilt
unless he repents.
His motives while kind are not
rooted in any kind of absolute or objective concept of goodness.
If goodness is purely
subjective as he seems to insist, then 'good' itself becomes a meaningless abstraction
and there's no difference between giving the bum a couple of bucks and kicking
his teeth in. It's all the same if it makes you feel good.
In fact if I were an
evolutionist I could argue that in terms of species propagation it might even
be your duty to kick his head in.
But of course 'duty' or even
the idea of 'species' or 'propagation' are words that are ethically
meaningless. They contain no imperative because in a materialist universe all
ethics are illusion. In fact any kind of grouping or universal has to (by
necessity) be merely a mentally conceived abstraction. Materially speaking it's
an illusion. There are those who are trying to 'prove' these ideas biologically
but I can confidently say they are on a fool's quest.
If he breaks down and
acknowledges guilt he would say it is socially derived. I of course would say
that it is innate. We know there is something out there called justice and that
this world is very unjust. It's innate because it's something that virtually
every society has some concept of. It doesn't mean they get it right. That can
be explained too, but a Materialist cannot account for a host of ideas ranging
from consciousness to shared abstract concepts.
And if his actions are
motivated by some sense of social guilt, he still can't account for it. If
someone else doesn't 'feel' the same motivation, who is he to say differently?
Just recognizing there is a
standard of justice or right makes us guilty, because in reality we as selfish
beasts are far from just. It should lead us to despair and drive us to seek an
answer. But many are too proud to acknowledge that they cannot autonomously
figure out all the answers.
Seeing is believing is the
creed of the Materialist. And yet they believe in many things they can't
actually see. Well, not yet anyway. They just want us to take their word on it.
Take it on faith.
Someday they dream they'll be
able to show us a pattern of firing neurons and proclaim this is what
'goodness' is.
Like I mentioned in the
previous article on the 'Different Faces of Evil', I find it refreshing when
lost people are concerned about universal morality and whether consistent or
not appeal to justice and condemn the unjust actions of people in the world.
What I cannot understand is
Christians that have adhered to alien ideologies and who consequently make
excuses for sin and try to justify injustice in the world.
