Militant atheists deem it their duty to disabuse Christians of their faith. Militant atheists think Christian theology is false, and they also think it’s morally wrong to believe falsehood.
Suppose a family is in a terrible traffic accident. The parents and one son are instantly killed. The other son is taken to the ER, unconscious. The son is put on life support. He’s suffered irreparable damage to vital organs. He will die from internal injuries in a few days. In theory, he could be saved by a multiple-organ transplant, but he’s at the bottom of the list.
Suppose he briefly regains consciousness. Suppose the attending physician is an atheist. His doctor could tell him that his father, mother, and brother are dead, and he himself will be dead in a few days.
But suppose the doctor lies to him. Suppose the doctor tells him that his parents and brother survived the accident. They are currently in critical, but stable condition. He will be able to see them when he gets better.
After a few hours, the kid lapses into a coma. But he dies happy.
From a secular standpoint, what should the doctor tell him? Should the doctor level with him, so that the dying, orphaned patient is in psychological agony for his remaining days or hours of conscious existence? Or should the doctor let the kid entertain a comforting illusion? Indeed, foster the illusion?
I’m not considering this from a Christian standpoint, but a secular standpoint.
I think I'll nitpick here, just for fun.
ReplyDeleteMilitant atheists think Christian theology is false, and they also think it’s morally wrong to believe falsehood.
Since when? I think what's more accurate is that "militant atheists" just plain dislike Christian teachings and politics. They'll call it "morally wrong" if that's convenient for them, but more often than not morals have nothing to do with it, even from their own perspective. They just dislike Christians.
From a secular standpoint, what should the doctor tell him?
"Whatever he (the doctor) likes." Maybe he should tell the kid his family died a long, agonizing death. Maybe he'd find it pretty funny to send someone off this mortal coil with some exceptional anguish.
Actually, I suppose there's the makings of a utilitarian argument there: that kid is toast. No matter what the doctor tells the kid, he's gone in a few moments. The doctor will be living. What if the doctor feels rotten that he had such a golden opportunity for a great, cruel joke and he missed it if he lets that kid die happy? What if he'd be delighted for years if he just stuck it to the kid then and there?
Seems like the most ethical decision there would be to twist the knife in the kid while he can. Secularly speaking, of course.
I'd go right for the juggler and tell him the truth. I guess the question to this proposition is seeing the atheist doctor has no power of life or death, God does, will he?.
ReplyDeleteDeu 32:37 Then he will say, 'Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge,
Deu 32:38 who ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their drink offering? Let them rise up and help you; let them be your protection!
Deu 32:39 "'See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
The truth is, our life begins a breathing aspect in this life and the breathing continues in the next life; and everyone of us when we breathe our last breath in this tent will come into a knowledge of God in the next life what He knows about us whether it is a happy knowledge or not when we pass!
You need to tell the kid his parents and brother died. And then tell him it's no different then any other species of animal groups in all reality, you are no more or less than an ape, and if you die it matters little to anyone really, and so you can leave all grief behind, even though these were your family.
ReplyDeleteWould that be a militant's frame of mind?
Have a joyous Lord's day in His eternal Truth as you gather to worship our Abba Father and His Son Jesus Christ our Savior and Friend!
From an atheist perspective, why does it matter whether the kid dies happy, or anguished?
ReplyDeleteOnce he's dead, it matters not to him that he was happy, or anguished, or even extant.
The doctor should just tell him whatever makes his own job easier.
It is not the role of a physician to push his or her beliefs on a patient, no matter what his or her beliefs happen to be.
ReplyDeleteSo if the physician believes the patient will die, he shouldn't inform the patient that he will die. Is that what you mean? I suspect you mean something else, but in that event your strictures generate a dilemma.
DeleteNo no no, you are completely missing the point of atheism.
ReplyDeleteIf Christianity is false but someone practices it, then he misses out on all that indiscriminate sex. Worse, if an atheist wants to have sex with a Christian girl but she won't because of her faith, he misses out.
I am mostly not kidding. Scratch most atheists, and I think that's the throb beneath the bluster.
I think vjack is right.
ReplyDeleteDoctors should stop foisting all this nonsense about "disease" on people. Who are they to say what a disease is, anyway?
As an atheist, I can not see how one would deem a belief to be immoral in and of itself. This is a straw man argument. A belief is a conviction, the culmination of processing available information to the best of one's ability.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand why so many assume we atheist lack apathy. Perhaps we are all sociopaths? This crudely constructed scenario would be a difficult decision for any doctor despite their belief set.
Have questions about how non-theists think or believe, as me anything..
andrewmyers
ReplyDelete"As an atheist, I can not see how one would deem a belief to be immoral in and of itself. This is a straw man argument."
Try telling that to Clifford, Russell, Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, Parsons, Kurtz, et al.
BTW, assuming (ex hypothesi) that it's a straw man argument, do you think it's wrong to believe straw man arguments?
ReplyDelete"Try telling that to Clifford, Russell, Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, Parsons, Kurtz, et al."
ReplyDeleteI can think of no relevant quotes, can you site any? I would like to see the context.
A straw man debate implies that the opposing parties stance is misrepresented as a means to disprove it, so by that definition I would certainly not support a straw man argument.
I am interested in your response regarding the men above though, particularly since I have read at least one of each of their works, some many. I can not recall anything along those lines.
Cheers!
andrewmyers
ReplyDelete"I can think of no relevant quotes..."
Then you're not trying very hard.
"A straw man debate implies that the opposing parties stance is misrepresented as a means to disprove it, so by that definition I would certainly not support a straw man argument."
And why wouldn't you support it? Because you think misrepresentation is wrong, perchance? Does that mean you think it's morally wrong to believe falsehoods (e.g. misrepresentations)?
"Then you're not trying very hard."
ReplyDeleteSo I guess you lied? I was expecting relevant quotes. You were asking for sources in your other comment on another post (which I will gladly provide since you apparently havent studied the subject, otherwise why would you be asking for sources). I am happy for the opportunity mentor you.
Oh, and misrepresentation does not mean "Believing in something false". Sort of a definition fail, wouldnt you agree? I saw that coming a step ahead but I thought I would let you play it out. Your welcome. Do you enjoy talking in circles? I must say you are a pithy one. LOL. Good show so far, but you are pretty much unraveling right before me friend.
Get me some quotes, I have looked myself. I don't presume to always be correct, because I do not have blind faith in anything.
andrewmyers
Delete"So I guess you lied?"
So I guess you're not as literate as you imagine.
"I was expecting relevant quotes."
I realize you operate at the level of sound bites, but try entire books.
"(which I will gladly provide since you apparently havent studied the subject..."
Try not to be more clever than your really are. Your effortful performance shows you to be less clever rather than more.
"...otherwise why would you be asking for sources)."
The logic of which applies to your own request.
"I am happy for the opportunity mentor you."
Like a dog mentoring its trainer.
"Oh, and misrepresentation does not mean 'Believing in something false'. Sort of a definition fail, wouldnt you agree?"
Since you offer no argument, why should I?
"I saw that coming a step ahead but I thought I would let you play it out. Your welcome."
You're trying to backdate a postdiction as a prediction. But prognostications are more impressive if you announce them ahead of time, not belatedly. Your vaticinium ex eventu lacks credibility.
"Do you enjoy talking in circles?"
Do you enjoy talking for the sake of talking?
"Good show so far, but you are pretty much unraveling right before me friend."
Your self-appointment judgeship lacks jurisdiction.
"I do not have blind faith in anything."
You abode blind faith in yourself, but you're just a monkey with attitude.
Andrew Myers said:
Delete"So I guess you lied? I was expecting relevant quotes. You were asking for sources in your other comment on another post (which I will gladly provide since you apparently havent studied the subject, otherwise why would you be asking for sources). I am happy for the opportunity mentor you."
The reputation of atheists and misotheists W.K. Clifford, Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Keith Parsons, and Paul Kurtz precedes them. Their work is a matter of public knowledge. More than enough people know precisely where Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins (for example) stand when it comes to their opinion of religion, when it comes "deem[ing] a belief to be immoral in and of itself." So you're either ignorant which doesn't exactly bode well for your line of work, to put it mildly. Ignorant about books like God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and The God Delusion. Or you're lying. If the latter's the case, then this is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. I say this in case you care about hypocrisy. However, maybe given your misotheistic "morals," you don't.
"Oh, and misrepresentation does not mean "Believing in something false". Sort of a definition fail, wouldnt you agree? I saw that coming a step ahead but I thought I would let you play it out. Your welcome. Do you enjoy talking in circles? I must say you are a pithy one. LOL. Good show so far, but you are pretty much unraveling right before me friend."
This is just chest-thumping. It's what apes like gorillas do. Not what reasonable men do.
On the plus side, I guess you do have something in common with apes after all!
"Get me some quotes, I have looked myself. I don't presume to always be correct, because I do not have blind faith in anything."
See here for starters. Next you might go here. After that, you can try here. And so on.
Steve likes to come up with morally ambiguous scenarios. Though uncomfortable, it's the reality of life.
ReplyDeleteSo what is the "right" answer from a Christian perspective? I'd probably lie to provide the kid some sense of solace. One has to weigh a variety of competing goods when determining the right thing to do, sometimes. Despite the Biblical admonitions that "God hates liars", I'm not so sure that honesty is always the most clearly moral choice. Sometimes foregoing the truth to spare another some form of pain seems the proper option.
Does that make me a moral relativist?
James said:
Delete"Steve likes to come up with morally ambiguous scenarios."
At the risk of stating the obvious, if he came up with a morally perspicuous scenario, then we'd know exactly what to do.
"Though uncomfortable, it's the reality of life."
If this is the case, then it's also another reason why Steve may have "come up with morally ambiguous scenarios." So you've supplied a possible answer to your own question.
"So what is the 'right' answer from a Christian perspective?"
Steve himself noted he's not considering this from a Christian standpoint but a secular standpoint.
"Despite the Biblical admonitions that 'God hates liars'"
You might want to check out posts such as the ones here or here for starters.
James,
Deletei) As I've argued elsewhere, I think there are circumstances under which lying is morally permissible or even obligatory. All things being equal, we should tell the truth–but all things considered, lying is sometimes morally preferable to telling the truth.
Telling the truth is not a moral absolute. And life in a fallen world doesn't always afford the luxury of ideal options.
ii) A Christian physician, in this hypothetical situation, doesn't have to choose between telling a merciless truth or telling a merciful lie. He can tell a merciful truth by sharing the gospel with the dying kid.
iii) An atheist has dealt himself a poorer hand. It's a choice between bad and worse. Better to lie to the kid than make him miserable for no good reason.
But that forced option is predicated on his atheism.
@rockingwithhawking, it would actually be "incorrectly".
Delete@steve @rockingwithhawking I have to believe you realize I was being facetious.
Its like you guys have machine guns and you are firing away, but they only gave you blanks.
andrewmyers.com said:
Delete"@rockingwithhawking, it would actually be 'incorrectly'."
Wow, you're actually correcting yourself? Okay, cool! Nice to see you correcting yourself. In fact, you should carry this over to your above arguments (such as they are) since your above arguments likewise need plenty of correction (to put it mildly)!
"@steve @rockingwithhawking I have to believe you realize I was being facetious."
A poor cover story for your poorer arguments. Intellectually speaking, you've been bankrupt for quite some time now.
Look on the bright side: you don't need to worry about intellectual property theft since you don't have any ideas worth stealing.
"Its like you guys have machine guns and you are firing away, but they only gave you blanks."
Speaking of firing away, you've been shooting yourself in the foot.
Anyway, you haven't brought up any substantive arguments against our replies. Instead you respond with barnacle-covered bromides and the like. So what else can one do but take all this as your concession of defeat?
On the plus side, waving the white flag is probably the smartest move you've made thus far.
"A belief is a conviction, the culmination of processing available information to the best of one's ability."-Andrew
ReplyDeleteFaith, or belief, is trusting. What do we trust in as Human Beings? I trust in the Truth, which is before us.
Atheists trust in darwin, or dawkins. Sad.
Peter wrote this, after he saw Jesus die and rise from the dead: " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ from the DEAD,...... Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls."
(1 Peter 1)
I trust in this truth my atheist fellow blogger. It is a life altering truth.