Apart from the early experiences, such as some type of relationship problem with their father (absent, harsh, criticizing, or some other relationship problem), it is interesting to view the current psychological characteristics of atheists.
1). They tend to take the moral high ground. They look down on believers as simplistic, uneducated, stupid, weak, intolerant, gun toting, racists, and simple minded dolts.
2). They tend to not be able to understand that their position means “anything goes,” with respect to morality. If there is no God, then there is no objective thing as morality. It’s all subjective… They always find some way to justify the fact that they practice at least some moral principles. Whether they think it’s biologically ingrained through millions of years of evolution or morality is simply “adaptive in allowing the species to survive.” Most often; however, they have never even considered the logical consequences of atheism and morality.
3). There is something in their lives that they are afraid they would have to give up if they believed in God. It’s usually some pattern that brings them pleasure in a way that they feel believers might label as immoral. They are typically not conscious of this.
4). They portray themselves as enlightened, intelligent, tolerant, moral, caring, accepting, loving, peaceable, and kind. And sometimes, they really and truly are. I’ve known them and met them. However, they are not tolerant, in general, of the beliefs of “believers.” They can tolerate anything but that.
5). Just like the fervent believer, they have trouble avoiding proselytising their belief system. They often try to promote their views to believers. They get a kick out seeing believers squirm when they ask them some deep philosophical question which the believer has not considered nor been confronted with.
As an aside, in treatment, I’ve noted a number of youngsters who are constipated, like to “crap on people rather than in the toilet.” Once they start utilizing the toilet appropriately, they stop utilizing people as a repository for their bound up bodily functions. They have to be taught to drink appropriate amounts of water and eat fiber to achieve this.
6) They find a replacement for “religion.” Whether it’s the environment, political causes, sociological wrongs, whatever, but they find a replacement. They have the notions of sin, redemption, and salvation, in their substitute belief system.
7) They pretend their emotional and psychological system has nothing to do with their lack of belief. But readily attribute psychological factors to those who do believe (i.e., needing a crutch, simple minded, lacking education, delusional). They espouse that naturalism is the true faith of intellectuals. Only a simple and weak minded fool would believe anything different.
Now, I have only seen or read about one logically consistent atheist…..Jeffrey Dahmer. There have been philosophers, I know, who have come to this logical conclusion. But I’m talking about someone who logically practiced what he believed.
“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…” (1)
So said Dahmer. I’ve not met a single atheist who can even come close to this degree of logical consistency, thank God! But they always skirt around this issue and never admit the logical consistency of Dahmer’s claims. To that extent, I think it’s good for society. However, it would be difficult for many atheists not to question their position if they were to admit the logical consistency of Dahmer’s argument.
(1). http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/06/jeffrey-dahmer-and-answers-in-genesis.html
37 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 3, 2008 at 3:22 am
Samuel Skinner
1) Atheism isn’t the moral high ground- it is the intellectual high ground.
2) That is because you are full of s*%#. Atheism is not about morality. Theism is not about morality.
As for “God gives morality” see Vox Day.The simple fact is that morality is unrelated to the existance or nonexistance of God.
By the way, this is a major reason atheist think theists are idiots- because they say things like that.
You can probably give some reason, but the fact is every reason has been beaten into the ground.
3) Bull. Do you need to have this explained or do you want this added to “why atheists think you are stupid”?
4) Did you know I’m intolerant of racists, rapists, child molesters, serial killers… I’m intolerant of alot of people. You know why? Because they are evil or their beliefs are evil or false. Guess where yours is? The false category.
5) Yes- atheists are going over seas and telling heathens that… wait- they don’t do it. For the most part atheists don’t prosthelytizing. Nice to see you are saying that all atheists who do that are immature poopy heads. Real substantial critique. Do you know why they do it? Some like arguing, some think theism needs to be opposed, some think others would be happy if they changed and some actually want to see what the arguments are so they can insure that they are right. I used to be the last kind- know, after seeing so much stupidity my mind is pretty firmly established.
6) Wrong! I haven’t done this and, amazingly enough, most of the atheist bloggers on the net haven’t done this.
7) Lets take a look at who is arguing based on “emotional factors”.
The simple fact is you have not made a single argument in favor of your position, a single argument about the truth value of your position.
You keep on harping about morality- morality is not arbitrary.
In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions.
wiki
Morality is voluntary. Otherwise it is intelligence self interest. There is not a reason to be good other than internal. Fear of judgment is not morality- it is obedience.
July 3, 2008 at 5:41 am
Ubiquitous Che
Hey man,
Is it strange that even though you’re technically putting my worldview under the microscope, I’m nonetheless finding this series of articles really interesting?
Anyway, just a few comments.
Consider these two points in light of one another:
And:
One of the things I think it is important to bear in mind is that point 2 is very much correct. Atheism alone is a negative worldview. It doesn’t actually give you anything – it just states that whatever other worldviews a person might hold, those worldviews will explicitly involve the concept that there is no God(s).
(Note here that when I use ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ here I’m not meaning ‘good’ or ‘bad’. I only mean that a ‘negative’ worldview tells you about what the person thinks does not exist, and a ‘positive’ worldview tells you what a person thinks does exist.)
A purely negative worldview, in and of itself, is not enough to build a system of ethics upon. You do need something positive. If a person merely declares themselves to be an atheist, they still have all their work ahead of them.
The question here then ties into your point 6, where you mention that atheists will substitute something else for religion. I’m not happy about the way you phrased it, because it implies that religion is the default worldview when it is very much not. I’m very much convinced that the only real ‘default’ worldview is that of total ignorance.
But my banal semantic nitpicking of your phraseology aside, the fact that atheists will tend to put forward some kind of positive worldview is actually a good thing and it stands in their favor. It is the positive worldview that they put forward that will provide the foundations for a system of ethics. And it is the positve worldview that they provide that will save them from the fetid abyssal depths of absolute nihilism and absolute moral relativism, thus countering the problem you highlighted in the first place under point 2.
Just an observation – I thought it was interesting how two of the points you listed are linked to one another. I hope I’m not guilty of trying to tell you something you already know about.
Oh, and by the way – I’m not trying to start an argument about which ethical system is better, that of religion or naturalism or Epicurean canon or Stoic logos or Aristotelian reasoning or enlightened self-interest – and so on and so forth. I’m sure you think religion is the best ethical system, just as you can be sure that I disagree with you – so let’s just leave it at that for now, because I know from past experience that it’s not an argument that’s going to take us anywhere.
July 3, 2008 at 10:35 am
thecountryshrink
UC. Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
“The question here then ties into your point 6, where you mention that atheists will substitute something else for religion. I’m not happy about the way you phrased it, because it implies that religion is the default worldview when it is very much not. I’m very much convinced that the only real ‘default’ worldview is that of total ignorance.”
I believe that the basic form and structure of religion is a need of all human beings. If you don’t like the term religion, there’s probably a better one. I’m asserting that they will find it one way or another. I see this as “by design,” whereas you may see this as something that “evolved” for the good of the species.
I’m not making a statement about the best ethical system. I’m saying that atheists almost universally find a way around the logical conclusion of atheism, that you state clearly, “And it is the positve worldview that they provide that will save them from the fetid abyssal depths of absolute nihilism and absolute moral relativism…” If a person starts from a point of belief in God then there is a basis for objective morality. Although this is not the central issue of my beliefs, because nobody can even come close to “living a good life” as defined by that objective morality. I don’t want to get too far into the resolution of this however, because it’s moving too far away from the point of my post. I’m not one of those people who considers believers to be better people than non-believers.
July 3, 2008 at 10:39 am
thecountryshrink
SS, thank you for illustrating many of my points. I don’t even know where to start with you. I could, but it would degenerate into an “endless loop” of drivel.
July 4, 2008 at 2:03 am
Ubiquitous Che
Granted. But I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t at least respond to this one thing.
There are many systems by which we can devise a basis for objective morality. Objective morality can follow from any objective reality. If you accept that the objective reality is that God exists, you can devise a system of objective morality based on that reality. If you accept that the objective reality is that God does not exist, then you can devise a system of objective morality based on that reality too.
The question then becomes: “Which of these two sets of objective morality is superior?”
And once again, I agree that this is not the time to try and answer that question. I just wanted to make the point that there are other paths by which we may achieve an objective morality than the path of theism, and that it would be foolish to presume which of these systems is superior without some firm evidence from which to draw the conclusion.
July 4, 2008 at 2:27 am
thecountryshrink
UC, I think I understand your point, but disagree.
By ‘objective,’ I am thinking along the lines of the Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary defintion of:
“expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”
I don’t believe there is any one single aspect of morality that everyone would agree on. It is filtered through an individual’s psychological system, emotions, and yes, at times, psychopathology.
Now, if there exists a God, who created the universe, the laws of the universe, and defines what is meant by “right” and “wrong” then there is no subjective human compenent that enters into the equation. He is the only one capable of objectivity in the matter, because he determines those facts of right and wrong.
A human may come to believe through a democratic majority of people who agree, that something is right or wrong, but I would not consider this to be objective. It’s just a position of pluralism and majority opinion. This is not “objective,” it is normative.
But, I go back to my same basic premise, that nobody is any more “moral” than anyone else (take for example a Christian compared to an atheist), but again the resolution of this fact in my mind is based on theology.
I’m making the point that there is no objective basis for morality without the existence of God. Without an objective standard for morality…anything goes. You decide on what is right and what is wrong based on what seems the best for you. My point is that rarely do atheists actually come to this completely logical conclusion because in my opinion, we are designed to seek out a system that defines morality. Atheists, almost universally, avoid the fact that they are not bound to any type of morality, because this is basic to the psychology of human beings. They seek out a system of ‘morality’ or ‘ethics’ because the logical conclusion is horrific and disgusting to them.
July 4, 2008 at 4:09 am
Ubiquitous Che
You’ve said a few times that you don’t feel the need to resolve things here. But I love this kind of argument, so I want to keep going. Just say the word and I’ll drop the issue.
First off, your description of ‘objective’ is precisely what I meant when I used the term:
The problem here is that we may disagree on what the objective reality actually is. Regardless of our disagreement, we can at least settle for the agreement that there is an objective reality that is worth knowing about. I’m not interested in bickering over the evidence at this point.
What I am interested in bickering over is this:
Actually, you’re wrong for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, there has never been a religion based on the concept of a divine creator that did not schism in some way. Objective reality disagrees with your prediction that the acceptance of the divine creator will result in an objective system of morality that everyone will agree with.
Secondly, a divine creator is, by definition, beyond the comprehension of a human being. From this we are forced to rely on our best interpretations of that divine creator, and thus we let in subjectivity by the back door.
Thirdly, the literature that is claimed to have been authored by any divine creator is – by neccesity – bound up in words. Those words need to be interpreted, and they can often be interpreted in many different ways. Once again, we wind up with subjectivity in the equation.
Fourthly, even if we ignore the third point the undisputed fact of the matter is that the meaning of words changes over time, and we can never be sure if our use of words really does line up exactly with what was written even just a hundred years ago.
Finally, it needs to be pointed out that just because a system of morality is objective, that doesn’t mean that it is a good system of morality. Objectivity is a neccesary but not sufficient condition for a good system of morality. This doesn’t actually disagree with your point in and of itself. I just felt that it is a point that needs to be made.
This is the second draft of my response. The first one went into more detail but it was more wordy.
July 4, 2008 at 2:07 pm
thecountryshrink
UC, I have to bring this back to psychology. While I would enjoy discussing what you wrote about from a scientific, philosophical, and theological perspective, that is not the point of my post.
I come back to my basic point that I have made several times now about the psychology of atheists. They tend to avoid vigorously, the logical conclusion that “anything goes,” as a result of their belief system. You have not addressed that directly.
You mentioned it indirectly, I think, in your first comment when you said:
“And it is the positve worldview that they provide that will save them from the fetid abyssal depths of absolute nihilism and absolute moral relativism, thus countering the problem you highlighted in the first place under point 2.”
By saying this, you do not counter my argument, but rather highlight it.
I said:
“2). They tend to not be able to understand that their position means “anything goes,” with respect to morality. If there is no God, then there is no objective thing as morality. It’s all subjective… They always find some way to justify the fact that they practice at least some moral principles. Whether they think it’s biologically ingrained through millions of years of evolution or morality is simply “adaptive in allowing the species to survive.” Most often; however, they have never even considered the logical consequences of atheism and morality.”
I’m making a statement that atheists tend to be compelled to avoid the logical conclusion of their disbelief and WILL find an alternative to that logical conclusion. AND it basically is a benefit to society that it is exceedingly rare that atheists are able to come to the conclusion that “anything goes.”
If you would further wish to pursue the discussion of objective and subjective morality beyond the scope of psychology, we can do so via email.. Just let me know. Feel free to continue commenting, but lets try to keep it on topic as much as possible.
July 4, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Jim Lippard
Your point 2 is a philosophical claim to the effect that morality requires the existence of at least one god. What is your support for that argument, in light of the fact that of the many meta-ethical frameworks for morality that philosophers have come up with in the last several millennia, the only one that actually requires the existence of a god is the divine command theory, which the vast majority of philosophers (since Plato’s “Euthyphro”) agree is not a sufficient ground for morality?
Have you actually researched this issue, or are you speaking off the cuff? My impression is the latter.
July 4, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Jim Lippard
BTW, atheism is not by itself a worldview–it is nothing more than a denial or doubt of the existence of gods, which is at most a *component* of a worldview.
Atheism entails the falsity of divine command theory, which I mentioned in my previous comment, but it doesn’t entail the falsity of any other meta-ethical ground for morality. Atheists can, without any logical inconsistency, endorse objective morality, subjectivism, amorality, relativism, consequentialism, contractarianism, etc. (at least, so long as those positions themselves contain no logical inconsistency).
UC did, in fact, refute your claim that atheism logically entails “anything goes,” by pointing out that the conjunction of atheism plus a positive framework for morality entails the negation of anything goes, and does not involve a contradiction.
You cannot agree with UC that an atheist can consistently hold such views AND maintain that atheism, in and of itself, entails “anything goes” in morality, without contradiction, as a simple matter of logic. At most, what you can hold is that atheism, in and of itself, is *consistent with*, but does not entail, amorality. And I would agree with that.
That may have been what you meant, but it is not what you said.
July 4, 2008 at 5:41 pm
thecountryshrink
JL…I’m not making an argument deeply entrenched in the philosphy of ‘famous’ philosophers. My argument is that atheists avoid a natural and logical consequence of their disbelief in God…that “anything goes.” You acknowledge this as one possible argument, but note that philospohers have made what you find to be compelling arguments against this. Again…this just further illustrates my point.
I can, in fact, argue that “anything goes” is THE logical consequence of atheism…but you are obviously free to disagree. You will of course disagree, and continue to do so because the alternative is horrific. It’s a natural psychological consequence that I view as ‘designed’ into human beings and you view as ‘evolved.’
There is quite frankly no resolution to this problem and it comes down to a matter of what you choose to believe. If you are an atheist and materialist, then you believe that everything has a physical, explainable cause. As such, there is no possibility for free will, and you are holding your atheistic beliefs as the result of a cause-effect chain of relationships. The fact that you are talking to me now, is the simple or complex result of these relationships in your life. So, frankly there is no thing as objective or subjective, only causes and effects, which the assigning of which is also subject to these factors. There is no such thing as morality in the determinist world of a materialist. The actions of people are simply the results of previous cause-effect chains. If someone views something as objective…that is the result of previous cause-effect chains. If someone views something as subjective…that too is the result of previous cause-effect chains. Not because they have ‘chosen’ to take a certain point of view, but because it is determined by the constraints of the universe…
July 4, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Jim Lippard
“I don’t believe there is any one single aspect of morality that everyone would agree on.”
What you fail to recognize is that this is true whether or not God exists–the existence of God makes no difference to the truth or falsity of that statement.
You are confusing what we know with what is the case, the map with the territory, epistemology with metaphysics.
I’ve written a blog post responding further to your point 2, and to your Dahmer argument. On the Dahmer quote, note that his question is easy to answer without gods. Regarding your Dahmer argument, note that it’s a consequence of your view that God, having no higher God to hold him accountable, should act like Jeffrey Dahmer. I consider that to be a reductio ad absurdum of your argument. Either there are rational reasons to not act like Jeffrey Dahmer independent of being held accountable by a God, or God behaves irrationally by not acting like Jeffrey Dahmer.
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/07/atheism-and-difference-between.html
July 4, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Jim Lippard
“I can, in fact, argue that “anything goes” is THE logical consequence of atheism”
Do you intend to do this, rather than simply continuing to assert it without argument in the face of very strong arguments to the contrary?
July 4, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Jim Lippard
“I’m not making an argument deeply entrenched in the philosphy of ‘famous’ philosophers.”
Whether you like it or not, your argument is a philosophical one, and an understanding of the philosophical issues is relevant to the argument. This sounds like a cop-out, an excuse for having and maintaining ignorance.
“If you are an atheist and materialist, then you believe that everything has a physical, explainable cause. As such, there is no possibility for free will, and you are holding your atheistic beliefs as the result of a cause-effect chain of relationships.”
This is loaded with misconceptions.
1. Atheism doesn’t entail materialism, physicalism, or naturalism.
2. Naturalism doesn’t entail physicalism.
3. Even physicalism doesn’t entail the nonexistence, uselessness, or falsity of higher orders of description or emergent properties.
4. None of the above entails that everything is explainable or comprehensible to human beings.
5. “Free will” is a complex philosophical topic, but you’re ruling out compatibilism without argument–the notion that what we call “free will” can be spelled out properly and made sense of, even if determinism of macroscopic causes is correct (and we already know that the world is not, in fact, deterministic at the quantum level).
6. I certainly hope that my beliefs are held as a result of a sequence of causes, specifically including perceptual input, linguistic input, logical inferences, and deliberation. I do not want my beliefs to be random or not the consequences of my place in my environment!
July 4, 2008 at 6:43 pm
thecountryshrink
JL….I simply note that Dahmer was logical in his beliefs and consistent in his behavior. I remark that he is the only one I know of who has carried it to this logical conclusion. Did he suffer negative consequences as a result? Yes, he did.
You may choose to respond as a consumate behaviorist. Following the reinforcement and avoiding punishment. You may choose to rely on this as your way for life and living. You may choose to adopt a philosophy different from Dahmer’s, and in fact, you will…of that, I have little doubt.
You may choose to take a different point of view than I have. That doesn’t make you any less intelligent than me. However, I get the feeling that you do not feel the same…(i.e., point 1).
July 4, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Jim Lippard
“I simply note that Dahmer was logical in his beliefs and consistent in his behavior. I remark that he is the only one I know of who has carried it to this logical conclusion.”
While that may be (I actually doubt that he was consistent in either his beliefs or his actions), his behavior is not logically entailed by atheism. You keep saying that it is, but you have not supplied any reason to believe it.
I wouldn’t consider my having better knowledge of philosophy or logical argument than you to mean that I am necessarily any more intelligent than you are, any more than your undoubted superior knowledge of clinical psychology means that you’re more intelligent than I am. Our respective knowledge of these fields is a consequence of the fact that we studied different subjects in graduate school.
You shouldn’t try to turn your point 1 into a self-fulfilling prophecy or validate it by engaging in mind-reading. It seems to me that the proper way to validate the claims you make in your above points is through empirical research. I’m not aware of any empirical data to support those claims, though I have seen some of them made before without empirical data by Christians such as theologian R.C. Sproul and psychologist Paul Vitz, who strike me as cranks who make the claims on religious grounds rather than scientific ones. Are you aware of any experimental data that supports those claims?
July 4, 2008 at 8:34 pm
thecountryshrink
“You keep saying that it is, but you have not supplied any reason to believe it.”
I thought I had, but apparently I haven’t to your satisfaction. I’m certain I won’t be able to do that for you if you have found nothing compelling in what I’ve written so far…
I’ve addressed the issue of empiricism before on a previous post…
“The scientific method is not the only way of arriving at truth. It may be for you and that’s fine. But frankly, it’s unlikely that your beliefs are not filtered through your own personal psychology and emotional system like every other human on the planet including myself. Peer reviewed journals would be unlikely to publish research into the issue I have raised because it is not PC. Picking on believers is… In fact, 67% of psychologists are atheists. Do you think an article about this would get past peer review? Peer review is not a clean scientific objective process that is free from the influence of personal bias. Neither is much research in the ’soft sciences,’ and also in the ‘hard sciences.’”
As to whether I engaged in ‘mind reading’ or set up a self-fulfilling prophecy on my feeling about your attitude, I’ll let the readers decide.
If you want to go further….I would need to ask you some personal questions…. So, let’s agree to disagree and move on…
July 4, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Jim Lippard
I agree that the scientific method is not the only way of arriving at truth. It is the most *reliable* way of doing so, and doing so in an objective and verifiable manner. We don’t and can’t always use science to guide our every decision, but ignoring its best supported results when formulating public policy and long-term personal decisions is likely to lead to bad outcomes. There has been plenty of scientific research published on the correlates of all manner of beliefs, including political ideology, belief or lack thereof in the paranormal (”sheep” vs. “goats”), and religious belief and lack thereof. I’ve seen studies that argue that religious belief makes people happier than atheists, and that the religious are more generous than the secular. I don’t see why there would be any problem at all with getting a well-designed study past peer review in one of the countless psychological journals. I suspect there are probably even Christian-specific psychology journals where a study of the sort you suggest could get in without any special scrutiny on the basis of an atheist-critical outcome.
I’ve re-read the entire thread, and I don’t see you supply any reasons for the claim that atheism logically entails amorality or nihilism. Note that any such reason, in virtue of what “logically entails” means, would have to demonstrate that it is *logically impossible* to consistently combine any meta-ethical framework with atheism. You would have to show that the mere belief in the nonexistence of gods, when added to any meta-ethical framework whatsoever, yields a contradiction. Or, to put it another way, that every meta-ethical framework whatsoever entails the existence of at least one god. And I don’t think you’ve even tried to do that.
My suspicion at this point, since you continue to make the assertion but haven’t responded to any of the counter-arguments, is that you don’t even mean to be talking about logical entailment, but something else like psychological necessity. In which case you should stop misusing the word “logically.” But I must confess I don’t see that you’ve made an argument for that, either.
At the moment, I’d prefer to decline answering personal questions from an anonymous country shrink. I’d be happy to do so were we in person and introduced to each other.
BTW, my comment of 6:17 p.m. blog-time–the one in which I refer to compatibilism–has not yet been approved.
July 5, 2008 at 12:09 am
thecountryshrink
Who knows, maybe we’ll meet some day and can chat about this further. Then I wouldn’t be an anonymous country shrink that with whom you’d feel uncomfortable talking about the personal aspects of your beliefs…just another human being. I would also feel uncomfortable asking those questions to someone I don’t know in a public forum. That’s why I say…let’s agree to disagree and/or take the discussion elsewhere.
I do want to comment about empirical research. Have you read any of the research on political beliefs for example? It’s all extremely biased in my opinion, and in the opinions of a minority few in the field. I’m not sure you fully grasp the stranglehold that politics and personal belief plays in shaping what research is conducted and how it is interpreted. In the soft sciences, the scientific method often ends up being a tool that researchers use to confirm opinions and beliefs that they already have. As to being a more *reliable* method for ariving at truth, I would say that this is entirely based on the researcher.
Having read stacks and stacks of research articles and scientific journals in psychology, and having seen the general slipshod way scientific psychology is conducted, data analyzed, and interpreted, I don’t believe I could say with any certainty that the body of research more reliably results in “truths” with the exception of psychological testing and psychophysiological studies. There’s even research on the research showing how bad it is and all the numerous ways that biases creep in to the process.
Here’s what it comes down to…the readers will either find an argument like this compelling:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0511basis.asp
Or they’ll find yours compelling that you posted on and linked to above.
We could argue all day long on the objective and subjective basis for morality (or years for that matter), but I cannot do so without extended philosophical, scientific, and theological arguments. I do not wish to do that here. That is not the point of my blog or my post.
What I have done in my post is describe tendencies and observations that I have made of atheists. So, go ahead and put that in the subjective category. If you’re honest with yourself, I think you’d find it hard not to agree that you have observed at least some of the same tendencies.
Truthfully, I’d find it a lot more interesting to see how your subjective observations of atheists may differ from mine, and how my observations fit or do not fit with you personally. That would be a great deal more on topic in my opinion.
July 5, 2008 at 2:09 am
kliska
I have to say that almost every post by an atheist here has supported the psychological points brought up in the original post. I too am amazed at the fact that atheists cannot grasp that their position logically means there is no objective morality that has any meaning whatsoever from their perspective. (Also, I’ve seen some good examples from the atheist posters that I could use in my college logic course to teach my students what personal attack ad hominem arguments look like.)
I’m going to come at this from a Christian’s POV, since that is what I am. First, human differences in moral law does not in any way reflect on God, or objective morality but on imperfect man. One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that mere humans are flawed, and we will not be perfected til we are dead, or changed at the rapture, or second coming. Therefore, our understanding of His Law, and our carrying out of His Law will not be perfect until then. This is one big reason why God became man, as Jesus Christ the Son, to live and die and be resurrected for us; He lived the perfect life, without sin.
It is not the acceptance of a divine creator that will result in an objective system of morality, it is the Divine Creator Himself that is, and presents, an objective system. Just because people don’t agree with it doesn’t change the fact; that is why it is objective; it is there, it is objective, regardless of people’s different opinions and/or interpretations of it. Jeff Dahmer thought it was ok to murder…that doesn’t make the system subjective, it makes Dahmer wrong.
There was a comment on the fact that we cannot truly comprehend God; however, the Divine Creator is also capable of revealing aspects of His character to mankind; this is no mere unreachable, untouchable God we are discussing; it is a God who walked amongst us in the form of Jesus the Son. He has also seen fit to reveal Himself through His prophets, scripture, creation, The Holy Spirit, etc… Thus, there is indeed an objective yard stick. How we interpret that yardstick, the ways we differ in interpretation doesn’t make the yardstick subjective, it makes us right or wrong.
Along with morality, Goodness is objective as well. God doesn’t just arbitrarily define goodness or righteousness; He is those things. He is Good; He is Right. His very nature and character define them, He doesn’t just define them as we define a word. Without God there is no room for anyone to label anything good or bad, right or wrong, it is only a matter of opinion; and it turns into might makes right. If it were possible to have any reality without God (which it isn’t), there would be no objective standard to establish an objective morality; it is literally impossible. In a purely materialistic world, truth is up for grabs as is morality. In a purely materialistic world everything would be bound in time-space, and something bound in time-space is limited.
What the ’shrink is saying is indeed accurate philosophically and logically; atheists have no basis for making morality judgments and have them mean anything, yet they cling to an idea of objective morality…what is interesting is that I was once in a discussion with a friend of mine, an atheist grad student and his really close agnostic friend. As I explained something very similar to this, that atheists don’t have a basis for any meaningful form of morality, the agnostic caught on and began agreeing with my logical points, the atheist couldn’t bring himself to see it.
It also happens my friend, the atheist, was a doctoral student in Counseling Psychology at the time. I asked him what he would tell someone who was suicidal…how would he convince the patient that they shouldn’t kill themselves? Why would he convince the patient that they shouldn’t kill themselves? What if the person was overwhelmed, a drain on society and their family, unhappy with no way out? He couldn’t give me a logical reason why the patient shouldn’t kill themselves…after all, the patient is just mere matter, and will probably be forgotten in a generation or less, they are a drain on family, etc… The agnostic soon jumped in and realized the point I was making and agreed.
Anyway, that’s just the high points. I hope to someday blog much more extensively on my own blog about Moral law, absolute truth, etc… But I will add in one interesting link amongst many on these issues: The New Atheism and Morality: http://www.rzim.org/GlobalElements/GFV/tabid/449/ArticleID/10020/CBModuleId/1303/Default.aspx
Here’s an excerpt: “Unlike the laws of nature, which even inanimate objects obey, moral imperatives appeal to our will and invite us to make real decisions on real moral issues. The only other parallel experience we have of dos and don’ts comes from our minds. Thus when the atheist rejects God while insisting on the validity of morality, he is merely rejecting the cause while clinging to the effect.
Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings happen to favor either because of their genetic makeup or conventional accords. There is no action that is objectively right or wrong. Rape, hate, murder and other such acts are only wrong because they have been deemed to be so in the course of human evolution.”
July 5, 2008 at 8:07 am
Hume's Ghost
Hi. I followed the link from Mr. Lippard’s blog. I’m an atheist.
I don’t want to insult anyone’s intelligence, but while the commenter above and country shrink have expressed incredulity at the inability of atheists to grasp that their beliefs *logically entail* no objective morality, I myself find it difficult to see how you all can not see that *no objective morality* is what your position entails, which is why I’m going to quote Euthyphro’s Dillemma:”Is that which is holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?”
In other words, unless you want to make “good” or “moral” to be tautology for the fiat of a being whose will is deemed so by virtue of its power (might makes right) then you must recognize that objective moral judgements are possible without a Divine Command theory. Otherwise, you lack the capacity to qualify God’s will as good or bad as those terms will be arbitrary as far as you’re concerned.
Frankly, I think the position that God = Good dangeorously close to mindless authoritarianism, and I know for a fact that this is indeed the case with some individuals who acting on the belief that God is good by definition have turned themselves into fanatics.
http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2006/03/voice-of-fanatacism.html
July 5, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Jim Lippard
Country shrink: I’ve seen some of the characteristics you describe (leaving aside point 2, where I think you’re completely wrong) in some atheists, but they seem to be most prevalent among those who were previously evangelical Christians, and more so in those who were *recently* so.
Those attributes also seem to me to be far more prevalent in evangelical Christians, and in the public square among conservative pundits. Have you seen the Triablogue blog, for example?
And why is it that the obvious principle that government should not endorse any particular religion is so often misconstrued by Christians who seem to think that they are being oppressed in any circumstance except the one where they get to promote their religion in an official capacity? This example from radio talkshow host and WorldNetDaily columnist Les Kinsolving shows what I am talking about:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/07/les_kinsolvings_silly_lies.php
I think perhaps you may be misattributing causes to atheism, rather than reaction to evangelical Christianity.
July 5, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Jim Lippard
kliska: If you’ve defined the setup in such a way that any atheist who comes here and disagrees with the list is thereby confirming it, and presumably you’d also say that any atheist who comes here and agrees with it is also confirming it, then I’d say you’ve pretty much created a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than performed a meaningful test.
Look at point 4, though, and compare it to the fact that polls have shown that atheists are the least-trusted group of people in the United States. Doesn’t that mean that point 4 applies to Christians?
http://secularoutpost.blogspot.com/2006/03/atheists-distrusted-by-97-of.html
http://secularoutpost.blogspot.com/2007/06/nonbelief-and-mainstream-values.html
July 5, 2008 at 1:30 pm
thecountryshrink
Oh, so the vestiges of Christianity is the cause of those characteristics, and slowly clears like the smell of a freshly killed skunk in the roadway? Yes, I know, I’m being dramatic….but apt perhaps?
In part, though I don’t make it completely clear, I am saying that atheists and believers have a great deal in common. I have not seen #1 minus the moral high ground component prevalent. #2 is not prevalent because it’s not an issue. #3 honest Christians recognize their sin/evil-nature and are thankful for forgiveness, #4 you can make that case either way, #5 I make the direct comparison (and it’s something that atheists tend to hate in believers but don’t see it in themselves), #6 speaks to the basic nature of humanity, #7 I don’t think most Christians look at atheists as needing a crutch or as being simple weak minded fools.
So, if there were no pushy Christians, atheists would have none of those characteristics? I don’t believe I am misattributing.
July 5, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Jim Lippard
I wouldn’t say it’s the “vestiges of Christianity,” but rather reaction to a particular sort of proselytizing Christianity.
Re: #1: I think “taking the moral high ground” is a *good* thing, but that’s probably not what you mean–I think what you mean is *claiming* to have the moral high ground (and, by implication, when one doesn’t actually have it). Nobody likes arrogant people with an air of superiority, but we also must admit that there are also people who genuinely are stupid, small-minded, uneducated, ignorant, etc., and in my opinion, nobody should be exempt from criticism. If an atheist criticizes something a Christian says as stupid, ignorant, or fallacious, that may mean that the atheist is an arrogant jerk, but it may also mean that the Christian has said something stupid, ignorant, or fallacious.
Re: #3: I think this is much rarer that most Christians seem to think. In any case, the public behavior of prominent Christians shows them to actively engage in any sort of immorality I can think of (whether a genuine immorality or simply something that conservative Christianity labels as such), so Christianity doesn’t seem to be any barrier to such actions.
Re: #4: Most atheists of my acquaintance genuinely have most of those characteristics. Some do not. Most Christians of my acquaintance genuinely have most of those characteristics. Some do not. As for tolerance, in my experience atheists are far more tolerant than Christians (including more tolerant of Christians than Christians are of atheists).
Re: #5: Among my acquaintances, I don’t see any greater proclivity towards proselytization by atheists than Christians–in fact, it seems to me that it’s the reverse. There are numerous Christian streetcorner and campus preachers, Christian missionary organizations, etc., but I’ve yet to run into any similar atheist streetcorner or campus preachers or missionaries. If somebody knocks on your door to tell you about their religious views, the safe bet is that it’s an advocate of some sort of Christianity rather than an atheist.
Re: #6: If person A has a life filled with a rewarding career, raising a family, contributing to the community through public service, engaging in recreational activities, while person B is cloistered and spends all of his time praying and chanting, would you say that person A has replaced religion with other activities and has a less well-rounded life than person B? How do you distinguish someone simply filling their life with valuable activity from someone who is “replacing religion with a substitute”? I can think of some activities which are religion-like, including sports fanaticism, but I don’t think most atheists find religion substitutes which include correlaries to the notions of sin and salvation.
Re: #7: You really make two points here. One is a claim that atheists don’t recognize their nonbelief as a (or the) cause of their psychology. I think that in many cases, it’s not. Most atheists live lives that are indistinguishable from those of most nominal but mostly secularized Christians (of the sort who make up the majority of Christians in Europe). Your second point is that atheists often attribute some delusion or pathological need to religious believers. On that point I think you are correct, and that atheists who do that are mistaken. Pascal Boyer’s excellent book _Religion Explained_ argues, correctly in my opinion, that religious inferences are just like other kinds of inferences that we make, and that it is the natural state of humans that they infer agency behind causes. Unfortunately, our natural inference patterns get it wrong much of the time–when we inferred that lightning bolts were thrown by the gods, that was incorrect, for example.
July 5, 2008 at 5:14 pm
thecountryshrink
#1. There is a difference in thinking or saying that “someone is stupid,” versus “what you said is stupid.” They are both derogatory distortions that lead to greater animosity. Even if it is not said, it shapes the nature of arguments that atheists tend to make. There’s a difference between thinking someone is misinformed versus thinking they are stupid, and it implicitly shapes the tone and nature of the discussion.
#3. I actually don’t think there’s much difference in terms of the morality of Christians versus atheists. I’m talking about a perception that many atheists secretly have…that they might have to give something up or will be judged harshly. From my viewpoint, we’re all on the same footing in terms of morality, and it is not good footing for all involved.
#4. I don’t find atheists to be more tolerant. The areas of tolerance and intolerance are different for both groups. Sometimes for both groups this is tied more to their political beliefs which they often see as a natural extension of their belief or disbelief in God.
#5. Both groups do it yes. Atheists tend to hate this in Christians, but often fail to recognize doing it themselves. I would expect Christians to actually do that more because it is part of their theology.
#6. I distinguish it in that they nearly always find that replacement I talked about that does include notions of sin (though not labeled that way), redemption, and salvation. This takes a great variety of forms, and would fall within the realm of psychological defense mechanisms. See my post I wrote on plausible deniability and defense mechanisms.
#7. No decisions can be made without the involvement of a person’s own psychology. It doesn’t work that way. It may occur without any conscious awareness that the psychology is involved, but that does not mean it is any less involved. You make a straw man argument with the lightning bolt reference. That has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not there is a God…and ultimately you are correct. One side or the other is correct, and not both. My point is that atheists often tend to view naturalism as the true faith of intellectuals. Often they tend to view the possibility of an intellectual believer as an oxymoron….as if the two are mutually exclusive.
July 6, 2008 at 11:45 am
The Country Shrink Continues Discussion… « The Christian Scribbler
[...] link to “Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism,” and now the discussion continues with Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism part 2. And the latest; Atheist commenting. To get a good idea of the discussions going on, read the [...]
July 6, 2008 at 11:53 am
kliska
To ‘Ghost: First, when you say, “I don’t want to insult anyone’s intelligence, BUT” you’re attempting to insult everyone’s intelligence by that statement.
Second, you give no evidence against the argument that atheists don’t have a logical leg to stand on when attempting to argue that they too can have an objective morality. You are implying that your conclusion is, “the atheist position can logically claim meaningful morality.” How? You don’t give any premises, instead you offer a red herring in trying to attack the Christian faith.
Third, to answer your red herring, the One True God, defines objective morality in a way that Euthyphro’s dilemma doesn’t touch upon. Note that the conversation in the dilemma revolves around the Greek pantheon and the inconsistencies seen within that pantheon. God doesn’t fit that description. He defines morality in His very nature; His Being encompasses these things; right-ness, goodness, etc…, not by arbitrarily defining it, and it doesn’t come from outside His being. I believe the ‘Shrink links to a discussion of this at: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47024 for one perspective
Frankly, I know that God is Good; there is overwhelming evidence of this fact; logical, historical, spiritual, etc…. What I believe we are seeing in your responses is the fact that you just don’t want to bow to His authority even though He is God, and that probably does entail a psychological component, but I know it involves a “heart” component. It seems you believe you could do a better job, and even be more moral than God Himself…I’ve read this type of story before, and I know how it ends.
However, you still have the opportunity to recognize Jesus as God’s Son, and your Lord and Saviour, and it is my hope and prayer that you do.
July 6, 2008 at 12:33 pm
kliska
Jim, if the list is accurate, at least on average, the atheist posters who come here and comment, are going to confirm that list; that is kind of the idea behind the list. When I agreed with the list, it wasn’t just based on what I see happening here, but all over the web, and also in RL encounters. No one is dictating or forcing someone to react in the manner described in the list. I do think it interesting that I’ve seen different psychological reactions from the agnostic position; there are different psychological components apparently at play behind when and what label people attribute to themselves.
1. They do indeed tend to act like believers are akin to drooling idiots; there are whole websites that seem dedicated to making fun of the intelligence of Christians. This is despite ample evidence that there are highly intelligent, thoughtful people that believe that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God, that He lived, was crucified, and resurrected on the third day. Indeed, I would even venture to say that the majority of Christian believers are intelligent and thoughtful people, and their faith is not blind.
2. This point is the one I’m mainly referring to when I say that atheist’s posts prove it. I’ve ran into perhaps one atheist who finally did admit that if the naturalistic worldview is correct, then there is no objective and absolute morality; however, they said that they would still act like there was. I see that as evidence for God. His imprint on us, and what we inherited from Adam is alive and well; a knowledge of morality. We may disagree on what is right and wrong, but everyone knows there is a right and wrong.
3. This point probably holds true for both atheists and believers. Everyone has something they don’t want to give up or change, including their perceived rule over their own lives. Believers get over that in faith…many times as we grown in our walk with the Lord.
4. They tend not to be tolerant of the beliefs of believers. For example, part of the Christian belief is that we are to preach the gospel/evangelize; they don’t like that. We are also to raise up our children with a knowledge of God, and His word. Then we have Dick Dawkins declaring that that is akin to child abuse (which his atheist followers have changed into a mantra). Yes, he backpedals, and reduces the charge of child abuse to those people that label a child a “Christian child” (which I’ve never heard anyone do….), but one has to question if he really meant his backpedal, since he, and his followers, keeps bringing the original charge up again and again.
Why would atheists be the least trusted? Because, their stance on morality rests on sand, and supposedly they do not believe in Ultimate Justice. Are there moral atheists? Absolutely. But their morality doesn’t have a logical basis if they reject absolute truth and an Absolute Objective Law Giver. Further, from a purely Christian POV, they are willfully denying the God who made them: http://christianscribbler.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/without-excuse/
5. They do tend to enjoy proselytizing. I’ve seen it happen innumerable times, with atheists even breaking Christian message boards’ rules to do so. They see it as “winning” if they get a Christian to even question their faith…hmmm…winning against Who I might wonder.
6. Anyone that does not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the Spiritual fulfillment of knowing Christ are indeed looking to fill that gap in different ways; intellectualizing, different religions, messiah type figures in literature/movies/TV, etc… human relationships, the list goes on. It isn’t just fulfillment on an emotional level, or psychological level, believers seek that type of thing too, but on a spiritual one, and it seems to get “worse” if the person denies the very spiritual nature of man.
7. They do tend to ignore their own emotional and psychological reasons for not believing, while at the same time maintaining Believers only believe because of psychological and emotional reasons.
Kliska,
TheChristianScribbler.com
July 6, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Hume's Ghost
‘First, when you say, “I don’t want to insult anyone’s intelligence, BUT” you’re attempting to insult everyone’s intelligence by that statement.’
I’m attempting to insult everyone’s intelligence? You have a psychic ability that allows you to know my intentions and motivations?
‘Second, you give no evidence against the argument that atheists don’t have a logical leg to stand on when attempting to argue that they too can have an objective morality. You are implying that your conclusion is, “the atheist position can logically claim meaningful morality.” How? You don’t give any premises, instead you offer a red herring in trying to attack the Christian faith.’
This is certainly the heads I win, tails you lose thinking that Mr. Lippard already alluded to. You made a philosphical claim about morality based upon religious reasoning. It’s impossible for me to reply to that without criticizing the underlying reasoning offered (i.e. “attacking the faith” and what not.)
I read the link you suggested, and found it to be jibber-jabber and mumbo jumbo (e.g. the Trinity can’t bear false witness against itself?) that is a long-winded way of saying, again, that God is good by definition, by nature, or whatever.
That is exactly the reasoning that was given to me by the Muslim in the link I provided as justification for the execution of apostates. For him, and for others who share his faith, God = Good is the foundation of their fanatacism.
That certainly seems, to me at least, to be a vivid and vital counterpoint to the assertion that belief in God is Good by definition/by nature/whatever apologetics constitutes an objective moral system.
Since we are likely not going to do anymore that present our viewpoints to each other, I will return the favor of the link given and offer this page of article by Michael Martin which illustrates my view of the matter
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html
July 6, 2008 at 7:37 pm
kliska
It doesn’t take psychic power when simply looking at grammar will do.
You’ve done it again, you totally avoid answering the question, or even the attempt at providing premises for your conclusion. How can an atheist logically claim they can have a meaningful, absolute, objective morality? What is your premises for saying that it is indeed possible to have these things without God?
Your misunderstanding appears twofold; first, you miss the context of Euthyphro’s dilemma, and second you miss the logic in the Christian’s reply at the link provided.
God is indeed good; man is flawed. Muslims, in their false belief system, teach that mankind is capable of following Allah’s commands on their own and that you should kill your enemies. Christians believe that mankind is incapable of following God’s commands on their own, that only God can deal out just punishment, that one should love one’s enemies and pray for them, answering evil with good…yup, that is exactly the same reasoning… Christian belief, and our saying that The One True God exists, is Good, is Righteous, etc.. is based upon logic, evidence, Truth, grace and on and on.
Then you create a strawman, “the assertion that belief in God is Good by definition,” no one has ever said that, or your grammar is messed up to the point that you are not communicating what you really mean. However, let me address both possible points; faith in The One True God is good by definition, but faith in a god/gods/goddesses/yourself, any false god is not good by definition. Also, God is indeed Good, He is also perfectly Holy, Just, Righteous, Merciful, etc… this statement is based on logic and evidence.
The article you link to does a swell job at showing the misplacing of the burden of proof; it is clearly seen in the attempt at a syllogism at the beginning of the article. Christians say that Atheists do not have a logical leg to stand on when arguing they can have objective morals; Atheist say they do. The atheist has the burden of proof because they are stating a positive, and also because their claim has the least initial plausibility. It is up to an atheist to defend their position on this, as they (you) have the burden of proof, it is subtle, but the author does indeed misplace the burden. The article contains straw man fallacies as well. Euthyphro’s dilemma has already been handled both theologically and logically.
Kliska,
TheChristianScribbler.com
July 15, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism–Part III « The Country Shrink
[...] continued my psychological study of atheism, and have more to add on the subject (see Part I and Part II). Severe loss during childhood or adolescence and childhood unhappiness also appears to be a factor [...]
August 2, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism « The Country Shrink
[...] also, Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism Part II and Part III, and Since atheists are about the only ones responding to my post. [...]
August 2, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Dave
I pity people who feel that they need the fear of God to be a good person. I loathe people who make that claim about others.
The idea of god is a manufactured belief. All of the other animals on this planet get along just fine without requiring any gods. Can you point out any other species on this planet that is as deliberately cruel and brutal that humans (yes, even the God-fearing ones) have been?
Speaking of non-belief as if it is a psychological issue is absurd. It only further demonstrates that people like you are detached from reality and that nonsense like this needs to be exposed as such.
August 2, 2008 at 3:33 pm
thecountryshrink
Ah yes, excellent Dave! From a Christian perspective there is no such thing as a “good person.” Only God is good. As for humans, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” … and “there is none good but God.” Do you think you are a good person…even in your thoughts and in your heart? Admittedly, there are many Christians who don’t understand this point, but that is frankly irrelevant to me….that’s their fault. There are ignorant people everywhere, whether atheist or Christian.
Ahhh, but speaking of belief as a psychological issue is perfectly fine. It’s only believers who have psychological issues or ‘delusions’ right? You couldn’t possibly have any psychological issues, because you are a completely rational computer…formed by random biological processes and natural selection. You have no emotions and no free will. You didn’t answer my question about your relationship with your father. Are you also speaking out against Dawkins, who claims that belief in God is a ‘delusion,’ and that you used in a previous comment? All I can hope for, is that you open your heart to the spirit of God, and address him with the problems that you have with Him.
August 3, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Kliska
Dave, I would also point out that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; we don’t camp out there. As a Christian, I don’t have to fear God, in the “scared” sense in the least, though we always have awe of Him. Quite the opposite of fear, He is a friend, a Good and Merciful Father…He brings joy and contentment even when we are facing tough times. Any goodness in me stems from the changing power of the Holy Spirit within me.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
You must think little of the animals that came forth at God’s command. They depend upon Him…in fact they normally do a much better job at these things than we do; Balaam’s Ass probably has us all beat; read Numbers 22. If you don’t have a Bible, you can find the text here: http://www.biblegateway.com
All of creation cries out to be made new, all of creation is also called on to praise God and that includes all the animals check out Psalm 148. Jesus informs us that if the humans were silent when He was entering Jerusalem the very rocks would cry out (Luke 19) .
It’s not the fear of God you need, Dave, it is God Himself. And He will send His Spirit to you if you acknowledge Jesus; He desires that all would come to salvation, including you. That fear you have is meant to make you aware of Him and to lead you to Him; once there, there is no more need to fear.
FYI, contrary to what you may have been lead to believe, we do not have a blind faith. In fact, pistis, the Greek word translated faith, is to have trust and confidence…no one has true trust and confidence in something that they have no evidence for, and God does not demand blind faith from us. Learn about His Son; His life, death, and resurrection; study the evidence. Study the evidence that shows the Bible is completely trustworthy; historically accurate, internally and externally consistent, archaeologically accurate, prophetically accurate, holds up to textual criticism, that the witnesses to Christ were reliable, etc… Put the time in, you won’t regret it.
The mind (psychological issues) affects the body (physical) ; mind and body are connected to our souls (spiritual). They all affect each other, so non-belief can indeed include psychological issues.
September 18, 2008 at 6:12 pm
A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part XI | Intelligent Design and More
[...] (1). The Edge of Evolution (2). http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20361761-29677,00.html (3). http://thecountryshrink.com/2008/07/03/some-psychological-aspects-of-atheism-part-ii/ [...]