You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'apologetics' tag.
You know, I wanted to keep the dialogue focused on psychology….but, I understand that the atheists were not really interested in that. So, let’s open this post wide open. If you are here to read in this post about psychology, please read my other posts. This one will entail theology, philosophy, and science.
Jim Lippard, of “The Lippard Blog,” has delivered a number of intelligent and cogent arguments, that require the use of philosophy (primarily), logic, and science in order to address. I aim to do that to the best of my ability here. Maybe I won’t do philosophy or logic justice, because I am neither a philosopher or extremely educated in all aspects of logic (apart from the intracacies of computer science and cognitive psychology, which includes some of the major logical errors that people make)….but I will do my best.
Jim states:
“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?”
Please feel free Mr. Lipper [slip of the keyboard later corrected to Lippard], to lay out your objective notions of morality apart from God. I am waiting eagerly.
As for “Euthyphro,” I note as an aside, that the issues discussed throughout this fictional account, have to do with problems with one’s father….Seems like I had something to say about that before, but I suppose that has nothing to do with why atheists find it so compelling…since I engaged in “arm-chair” analysis.
So, we come back to naturalism, that everything that occurs is the result of natural law. That everything is the result of matter and energy. There is nothing more to nature than can be explained by the laws of nature.
Now, one law of nature is causality. You have made an unconvincing argument that such a thing as free will might exists apart from the supernatural. I ask you to back up that claim. With nature, the laws of cause and effect are inexcapable. The macroscopic world does not follow quantum mechanics where predictions are probablistic. Quantum mechanical effects occur only in the most controlled of conditions. Even if you make a claim based on quantum mechanics, you would need to make an assertion about how this might result in free will. I assume that you believe that you have logically and freely chosen your atheism. However, this cannot be the case within the worldview of naturalism. If you have a different worldview, please feel free to make it explicit. Within the laws of causality, you have no more chosen to be an atheist than a snowflake has chosen to form, the complexity of which you deem as sufficient for nullifying ideas of intelligent design. From the beginning with the “big bang” all things were set in motion to occur in exactly the way they occured with no possibility for any alternatives, no possibility for any free will.
So, as a result, people who come to believe in God, do so because of how things played out in the evolution of the universe. And people who don’t believe in God, do so because of how things played out in the evolution of the universe. Now if everything occurs in a cause and effect chain, what is your basis for determining anything is moral or amoral? You only say so because of the cause and effect chain. You are just matter and energy, what are the moral imperatives of matter and energy?
Can you explain consciousness? You cannot. Science has not even scratched the surface here. You may make appeals to quantum mechanics, but they are only appeals and unsupported by any objective data. Anything you say that would support free will is only an assertion with no clear empirical backing. So the fact that you choose to be moral in certain ways is only a result of the random interaction of particles and matter. Completely meaningless. If you harm another human being, so what, you’ve possibly changed the state of matter. Big deal. States of matter change all the time. What is the objective moral opposition to murder from a materialistic perspective? “Thou shalt not knowingly change the state of matter???” You may say that you may incur punishment as a result. But what does mere matter and energy care about something that changes it’s state. Apparently it does…
Now, Euthyphro’s dilemma was based around inconsistencies in the Greek pantheon. Yet, you want to apply this dilemma to the beliefs of Christians.
For a discussion of Euthyphro’s dilemma from a Christian perspective, see this link.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47024
So, you accuse me of not providing any evidence for my position, when you have not provided a shread for your own….that atheists can have an objective basis for morality. I eagerly await you and your fellow atheists to provide such an objective basis.
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
“Freud saw psychology as a scientific replacement for religion. Psychological theory replaces outmoded religious beliefs about the human person. And psychoanalytic techniques replace religious practices.” (1)
Freud noted that the, “analysis is not complete” until the patient’s religious views were analyzed. I agree, but in the opposite way that Freud envisioned.
There are often clear psychological reasons that a person becomes an ‘atheist.’ Most often, the thing that gets in the way of faith, is the relationship with the individual’s father. Specifically, if the father was harsh and cruel, the individual will often come to impute or displace these characteristics onto God. They will often see God as “harsh and cruel.” The father doesn’t necessarily have to be harsh or cruel, there can be many factors and varieties of the problematic relationship.
“God can’t exist because there is evil in the world.” Many atheists come to believe that there is no God, because of the fact of “evil” in the world. And, that if there is a God, he must be cruel because of the bad things he allows to happen (murder, rape, natural disasters, and so forth).
I’ve heard it said, “If there was a God, then why do so many bad things happen to good people.”
They can’t conceive of a “heavenly father,” who loves them and who cares about the world. They ‘project’ their feelings toward their earthly father onto God. They believe that there is such a thing as “good people.”
So far, I have not seen a single atheist who does not have relationship problems with their father. Or often, if they believe, their belief is distorted by their relationship with their father. They project (direct or displace) their feelings toward their father onto God.
I’m not saying that this is the only psychological reason that one becomes an atheist, but it is the one I have observed frequently.
It’s interesting to look at Freud as an example.
In his 40s, Freud “had numerous psychosomatic disorders as well as exaggerated fears of dying and other phobias” (Corey 2001, p. 67). During this time Freud was involved in the task of exploring his own dreams, memories, and the dynamics of his personality development. During this self-analysis, he came to realize the hostility he felt towards his father (Jacob Freud), who had died in 1896…(2)
Charles Darwin is also noted as having a problematic relationship with his father. In the course of researching for this post, I discovered that I am not the first to connect the idea of problematic relationships with the father and atheism. It turns out there is a book entitled, Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism
Many times, I have seen patients resolve their emotional conflict about God in the context of their feelings toward their fathers. When they come to see that they have displaced their feelings toward their earthly fathers onto the heavenly One, they are often able to develop a relationship with God, without the emotional baggage.
(1). http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/RE/R-F2–00.HTM
(2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud
See also, Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism Part II and Part III, and Since atheists are about the only ones responding to my post.
Recent Comments