Atheist Tuesday: The Naked Professor

Nov 13, 2012Steve Sanchez13 CommentsAtheist Tuesday

Here’s an interesting challenge to atheism from American Vision:

Maybe you’ve seen the headline: “Michigan Professor Strips Naked in Class, Shouts ‘There Is No ~~expletive deleted~~ God’”

While on a speaking tour in the North East part of the United States and Canada last week, I presented a talk on the ethical implications of atheistic evolution. I pointed out that while atheists are not by definition immoral, they cannot account for morality or immorality given the operating assumptions of materialism, which are fundamental to atheism.

There is no morality in matter or in the intricacies of DNA. No one has seen written on anyone’s DNA commandments that state, “You shall not murder, steal, or rape.” In scientific terms, there is no such “thing” as morality. And even if DNA had certain prohibitions encoded up and down its double helix strands, what would be the obligation to follow them?

In a debate with an emailer, I challenged him to send me a box with some morality in it. I wanted this supposed consistent materialist to back up his materialist worldview with the material of morality. Of course, there is no such “thing” as morality in a matter-only cosmos.

Some atheists are beginning to see the logical implications of a matter-only worldview. Meaninglessness is the operative word. Read the rest by clicking here.

Comments (13)

theB1ackSwan
November 13, 2012
Reply
Of course, depending on who you are talking to, the morality of that person or of that society may be different. For instance, I tend to lean towards a utilitarian version of morality. Whatever allows the society to thrive while not sacrificing the needs of the individuals of that society is a valid moral law.
The point, however, is that morality simply doesn’t exist without anyone being able to apply it. Analogously, when a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it doesn’t make a sound because there is nothing to detect a sound exists.
I’d be happy to have a “debate” with you via e-mail. I feel it actually could be a solid discussion.
Whateverman
November 14, 2012
Reply
In scientific terms, there is no such “thing” as morality
This is a lie
- vintango2k
  November 14, 2012
  Reply
  The areas of the brain and the code that creates said regions that govern tit for tat, and reciprocal altruism, have been discovered Steve. Nowadays and many people don’t realize this, but we can plunk you down in a fMRI scanner and image your brain as questions of morality are posed. In sociopaths, psychotics, etc. those regions of the brain have become damaged, which leads to… well… their ammoral behavior, as compared to a non-violent empathic person who possesses a healthy brain. Tit for Tat and reciprocal altruism are completely understandable from an evolutionary perspective as well.
  - Whateverman
    November 15, 2012
    
    Nice follow up, Vin. FWIW, you might be interested in Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape, which skirts the boundary between science philosophy and ethics. In any case, it talks very much about the stuff you mentioned, showing that Steve’s article is indeed demonstrably fallible.
Nohm
November 14, 2012
Reply
My goodness the writer of that article is ignorant about viewpoints that aren’t his.
I don’t even know where to start taking down his misunderstandings, and people here on the blog have already presented methods to get to objective morality within a materialistic framework.
But, again, this article is intended for people like you, Steve, and not people like me; it’s intended to bolster your believe, instead of being the least bit persuasive to me.
- Garrett
  November 14, 2012
  Reply
  Atheist Tuesday has, funnily enough, never been for the atheists.
Mark hunter
November 14, 2012
Reply
I have to agree with the others. Atheism can and does account fully for morality. As Aron Ra says, while science doesn’t know everything, religion knows nothing.
- theB1ackSwan
  November 14, 2012
  Reply
  I think a small point of clarification is needed. It isn’t necessarily that atheism (as a philosophical counter-point to theism) accounts for morality, but rather that theism is not required for a valid explanation of morality.
  I know, semantics, but it is points such as that that theists (such as Steve -> no offense Steve) use in dialogues to warp the conversation.
  - Nohm
    November 15, 2012
    
    I like clarifications with regards to semantics, so thank you.
Dr Samuel Joseph Cheah
November 15, 2012
Reply
Hi. In principle, many atheists in the world can’t draw a definite line on morality or immorality, let alone the the faith that God exists in the universe and is the creator of all things. No wonder the bible solemnly declares: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. – unquote (Psalm 14:1) Since they prefer to draw from their their own assumption that if there is no God, then everything to them is seemingly fated and morality is how they weigh the issue according to their finite mind.
- Nohm
  November 15, 2012
  Reply
  “Hi.”
  Hello Dr Samuel Joseph Cheah.
  “In principle, many atheists in the world can’t draw a definite line on morality or immorality,”
  What exactly do you, as someone who is not an atheist, base that claim on?
  “let alone the the faith that God exists in the universe and is the creator of all things.”
  What does “draw a definite line on the faith that God exists in the universe” mean? I think you meant to write that differently.
  Regardless, as for “God exists in the universe and is the creator of all things”, do you have any evidence for those two claims? If you do, I’m listening.
  “No wonder”
  I’ll be honest; there are few things that crack me up as much as someone, who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, starts an invalid and unsound conclusion with “no wonder…”.
  For example: Christians are just scared of the Devil. No wonder they speak in tongues in churches.
  “the bible solemnly declares: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.””
  I don’t say any such thing, either in my heart or with my voice, and yet I’m an atheist.
  Maybe, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
  “They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. – unquote (Psalm 14:1)”
  Dr Samuel Joseph Cheah, are you a Christian? If so, why do you believe in God having partners (i.e., Jesus), like the pagans do? You quote scripture to me, so I’ll quote some important scripture to you:
  Say: He is Allah, the One!
  Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
  He begetteth not nor was begotten.
  And there is none comparable unto Him.
  (Surah 112:1-4)
  Aren’t you worried? Aren’t you afraid of the Hellfire that awaits someone who ascribes partners with Allah?
  Wait, what’s that you (probably) say? You don’t accept scripture from an ancient holy book that you don’t already view as authoritative?
  Huh. If that’s the case, then why would you do that to others?
  “Since they prefer to draw from their their own assumption that if there is no God,”
  Failed mind-reading, bucko. I’m an atheist, and I don’t assume that there is no God.
  If you have evidence, maybe you can stop with the attempted rhetoric and actually demonstrate that your claims match reality.
  “then everything to them is seemingly fated”
  Says who? You?
  “and morality is how they weigh the issue according to their finite mind.”
  Doc, you have no idea what and how we think. It would be better for you to ask someone, “do you think this?” than to show your ignorance by saying “you think this” when the other person does not think that.
  Hence, your failed mind-reading.
  - vintango2k
    November 16, 2012
    
    A doctor who jumps to assumed conclusions without gathering facts… if you’re a medical doctor, no offense, but I’d consult someone else. Perhaps you’re a PHD in the field of ‘truthology’?
  - Nohm
    November 16, 2012
    
    Dr Cheah, I forgot to mention: if you don’t know me, please don’t think you know what I do or do not prefer.
    (I’m referring to your statement of “Since they prefer to draw from their their own assumption that if there is no God, then everything to them is seemingly fated and morality is how they weigh the issue according to their finite mind.“)