It's not about you. Or is it?
Dear readers,
Since many of your comments are more insightful than those from this Average Joe, I decided to post a recent comment as the lead. Plus, the last thread was getting long, although it’s fine to keep it going or continue it here.
Kenneth Huebel presents the following challenge to naturalistic thinking:
Naturalists are always ready to challenge the logic of faith-based reason. So I offer the same challenge to the naturalist. I would be interested in getting a better understanding of naturalistic logic from someone with a naturalistic perspective.
I don’t know how someone who rejects the idea of this being a creation of God to fulfill God’s purpose, can see life’s purpose from anything other than a selfish standpoint. Self-fulfillment, self-satisfaction, self-needs, self-gratification.
If you are an accident of nature, why would there be a need for life to be about anything other than you and the satisfaction of your needs? Logically, it seems to me, emotion and feelings and even reason are nothing more than evolutionary concepts to cope with survival—your survival and possibly the continuation of the species; they would not be anything more than that. Other people’s survival is only going to be important with respect to how it affects your own and some built-in naturalistic coded need to preserve the species.
Even previous discussion arguments that naturalism can be moral are only true from a premise that morality is necessary for survival (though hard for some of us to swallow, based on the fact that life survived quite well for millions of years before a concept of morality came into being). All I see from a naturalistic paradigm is to fulfill selfish needs. I see no logical reason for anything else.
If someone doesn’t accept the logic of that, then how would they accept the notion that life is simply the result of a naturalistic evolutionary process and nothing more?
Comments
I am not of an astounding
I am not of an astounding intelligence level as some of you have been gifted. I do have two college degrees but my focus has been in human service, yet in the last few years the Lord has drawn me closer to seeing the world of Science and its correlation in faith so I end up on this site..... I am a child of God and reading these posts just stirs my heart to be more insightful to those web scoffers i have encountered so many times....i am at fault for seeing them as just pure evil... one comment particularly struck me...their focus is on only emotion...not reason..... so true.
We are sinners and we need
We are sinners and we need to repent of our sins and accept the sacrifice that Jesus made in our place in order to be reconciled to God to attain heaven. This information is available in the Bible. ANYONE… Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheists… who gets this information and decides to put their trust in the God of the Bible will be Saved if they call upon Him. And as confirmation of our salvation God gives total and complete PEACE in our hearts.
The Catholic Church insists that the Bible should be supplemented by teachings or traditions of the church. It says that we are saved through our faith in God AND our good works. The Bible clearly states we are saved ONLY through our faith. This is what led to the Reformation. A catholic may read the bible, repent of his sins and be saved and may still want to remain part of the church without wanting to break from his religious tradition. So, - there are some Christians in the Catholic Church, but - the Catholic Church is not Christian
The essential doctrines of the Bible are plain and easy to understand. There is no need for the ‘correct interpretation’ but there is a need to point out incorrect interpretation.
You should trust the science but not the scientists or the agendas of the scientific programs. When you read an academic paper in a journal you can trust the Results section but not the Introduction, or Conclusion (accept is not the same as trust). I trust the Bible but not the priests or churches. That’s why I am a Baptist.
Dear Clifford, "What you
Dear Clifford,
"What you are describing is Catholicism and other religions, not true Christianity."
Oh you are right. I forget you are a member of the true Christianity and beholder of the correct interpretation.
"... We are filthy sinners and God is Holy and Just; we cannot trust humans and human institutions; we are wonderfully made ..."
So humans are wonderfully made and at the same time humans are filthy sinners that cannot be trusted?
Dear Jon S.
"I am disappointed with your reply to Kenneth Huebel. I was looking forward to a serious answer and instead you gave a condescending slap at Christianity."
Kenneth's question is built upon the same faulty presumptions as Steve Gann's argument in the previous thread. Please see that thread for my serious answer. Your further questions also have hints of these errors. I am not interested in discussing Hitler and his culmination of centuries of European Christian anti-semitic fervor.
Dear Nick T.
When you say, "methodological naturalism," do you mean Science?
I think there may be logical
I think there may be logical reasons for atheists to be unconcerned for their own beliefs. I also see it to be part of the dilemma we seem to face in an effort to have a logical and objective discourse with a firm believer in naturalism.
The proof of theistic logic lies in a challenge to naturalistic logic, in order to demonstrate that theism makes more logical sense of observable reality. Since one cannot disprove the supernatural, without establishing a logical proof of a naturalistic explanation, the burden of proof must lie with naturalism, which, presumably, can be proved or disproved by testing.
In order to make naturalism a religion, which cannot be disproved, one merrily has to switch the burden of proof to theism. On the one hand, they can claim superiority by accepting the burden of proof is on naturalism (which, in theory, can be disproved), but in reality they switch the burden of proof to theism while denying the means of proof. No room for debate under those parameters. Naturalism by faith, without acknowledging their faith.
Another reason may be they simply do not like where the logic of their own belief system leads them, it doesn’t offer a logical explanation for their feelings and emotions, so their emotions become their reality. With a theist, his reality is his faith.
In a promotion for the book, “Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend”, by Christian philosopher and apologist, Ravi Zacharias , I saw this quote which seems applicable, "We are fashioned by God to be thinking and emotional creatures. The emotions should follow reason, and not the other way around."
Years ago, a sociologist
Years ago, a sociologist told me of a social role in Tennessee known as “scoffer”. Almost exclusively male, scoffers would gather outside church doors on Sundays to revile believers. Obsessed with proving believers to be wrong, scoffers were far less concerned with their own beliefs. Yet every so often, a scoffer would “come to mock but stay to pray.” Pastors and leaders urged compassion in dealing with scoffers: those who “came to the Lord” would sometimes transform into effective evangelists. Unlike more stable atheists, scoffers (who these days hang around church websites instead of church doors) can rarely be coaxed into amplifying their own belief systems. They come for another reason entirely: to satisfy themselves of believers’ errors.
Does methodological
Does methodological naturalism, despite its (ultimately fatal) flaws, provide any common ground, at least in the lab?
Jon S. Good points. If
Jon S.
Good points. If naturalism is true, then the only lasting obligation seems to be one's genes or one's group's genes to survive. Any mechanism to achieve this would be permissible. Could you imagine the inconsistency if a philanthropic atheist organization (let's call them The Moral Atheist Society) had gone to Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot and said "What you are doing is morally wrong!". Then again, isn't this exactly what atheists do when they argue that God was wrong for sending the Israelites across the Jordan to exterminate the people there?
Clifford G.
Thank you for the information. I will try this in the future.
Everyone,
I have posted an improved version of the "atheism and evolution" argument from the last post, based on feedback from Bob and Luke. I would appreciate your feedback on this version. I put it at the end of the last subject.
Thanks
Steve, Try typing your post
Steve,
Try typing your post on MS Word, then copying the content onto this space. Sometimes you need to submit the same post several times with slight modifications each times. But that means more work for Average Joe. ;-)
Bob, I am disappointed with
Bob,
I am disappointed with your reply to Kenneth Huebel. I was looking forward to a serious answer and instead you gave a condescending slap at Christianity. It is like saying I am a naturalist because I am not a Christian. I would expect a true naturalist to give an answer that does not include a reference to religion or some deity. So can you answer Ken's question?
I would also like to know if you think Hitler was correct and if he was not correct why? If altruism is counter to Darwinism why should we pursue it? Why should we try to heal the sick and permit corrupted genes to enter the gene pool? Where does atheism ultimately end if followed to its logical conclusion?
Hello Everyone and I hope
Hello Everyone and I hope you fathers had a pleasant Father's day ,
I have been out of state for the past week visiting relatives, and it seems I have some catching up to do. I missed you guys...even Bob!
Kenny,
I might be wrong about this but I think this creates a dillema. If an Atheist asserts that they are a moral person that can mean two things:
1) They acknowledge the existence of a universal objective standard for morality by which they measure themselves as "moral". But then they have to explain how such a standard can exist within their worldview.
2) They claim to be "moral" but define it in subjective ways like what they think is right, or their culture thinks is right, or maybe even human consensus of some sort. If that is the case their "morality" becomes just their opinion that they are "moral" and they lose the ability to assert themselves.
Bob L. Sturm
I have posted something for you on the previous discussion.
Can someone tell me how to do the bold and italics formatting for this site?
Bob, You said, "And doing
Bob,
You said, "And doing nice things to win the graces of a deity and a prize of living forever? No, that isn’t self-fulfillment at all."
Grace (charis) is unearned and unmerited favor.
"For by GRACE you have been saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
"For the wages of sin is death, but the FREE GIFT of God is ETERNAL LIFE in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23
Bob, What you are
Bob,
What you are describing is Catholicism and other religions, not true Christianity.
True Christians do "nice things" because they have ALREADY been Saved by God's grace.
We are Saved by God's grace through our faith when we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.
We accept Jesus' sacrifice when we realise: We are filthy sinners and God is Holy and Just; we cannot trust humans and human institutions; we are wonderfully made, our planet is wonderfully made and our existence can only be explained by the Bible; we desperately seek forgiveness for sins from somebody, anybody and don't find it except from God himself.
Oh Bob, the peace and relief I got when I accepted Jesus was so amazing I was laughing, crying and grinning like an idiot at everyone!
It is peace in your heart that surpases all understanding.
Dear Bob, I agree, what you
Dear Bob,
I agree, what you have described sounds like a philosophy that plays off of human selfishness.
Which is exactly why I believe so strongly in the logic of Christian doctrine. Doing something under a fear of punishment, or for reward, is not justification for a good work. I believe in following the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. The only justification I can find meaningful to accomplish a good work, is unconditional love.
I'm not an atheist, but I
I'm not an atheist, but I can tell you that Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and ideas like kin selection, etc. will be used to answer this question. I haven't personally looked into this stuff yet, but that's my understanding of how the naturalist would answer.
Poor Kenneth Huebel cannot
Poor Kenneth Huebel cannot understand why a person wouldn't do nice things without the specter of eternal torment. And doing nice things to win the graces of a deity and a prize of living forever? No, that isn't self-fulfillment at all.
I have asked myself that
I have asked myself that question many times. There are three possible answers I find that a naturalist might use.
As you have touched on, a good sense of morals or strong society may better ensure the passing of one's genes (the ultimate goal of evolution). I remember that they cited altruistic acts of certain mammals as evidence of "sacrificial love" and "morals" in sub species.
They may also cite the idea of an "emergent property". Consciousness, love, art, etc. may not be a tool of survival, but a result of survival that formed when our intelligence became high enough through competition to override our survival instincts.
Survival is indeed our first priority and is evident when not enough resources exist. Only in areas where excess resources exist are we able to train our minds to override our self-serving tendencies. Even then, we don't always succeed.
I, myself, do not believe any of these are strong arguments when compared against true love, but I have heard them from naturalists in some form or fashion.