Secular terrorists

Nine years ago, Jordan Howard Stobel published what is widely deemed to be the most philosophically rigorous attack on the existence of God. His book was a book by a philosopher for fellow philosophers. A highly technical, logically stringent treatment of various theistic proofs.

However, in the very first chapter, he makes a striking admission:

John Mackie says that there are no objective values (Mackie, 1977, Chapter 1). He says that there are no objective goods or values of universal validity that everyone ought to cherish, whether or not they would be so moved in the end, on fully informed reflection. He holds that there are only subjective values, this or that person’s values, where a particular person’s goods are the things he would in the end be moved to value.

For what my opinion on recent difficult matters is worth, I think that the ordinary God-talk of both believers and disbelievers does presuppose the possibility of a being objectively worthy of worship and the rest of an objective god. And I think, for Mackiean reasons, that there cannot be an objective god, a being such that there would be a prescription, valid and authoritative for all, that those who believe in its existence must worship this being. I do not believe in the possibility of such prescriptions. Logic and Theism: Arguments for and Against Beliefs in God (Cambridge University Press 2004), 25.

This is what he seems to be saying: He doesn’t believe in God because he doesn’t believe in objective values. He agrees with Mackie’s contention that there are no objective values, and he regards the metaphysical status of God as a special case of that general proposition.

If my interpretation is correct, then his subsequent behavior is irrational. For having made that preliminary admission, he acts as if it doesn’t make any difference. He continues for another 650+ pages of dense text, chock-full of long dry logical syllogisms. He even has a chapter on the problem of evil.

But if he doesn’t believe in objective values, then what’s the value of disproving God’s existence? Why does he pour so much intellectual effort into that project? Why does he dedicate the only life he has to that project? Why continue playing the game after you lose?

The only motivation I can think of is intellectual pride. Atheists like Sobel take pride in their mental acuity. Argumentation for the sake of argumentation. Intellectual pride becomes a snare for clever atheists. They spend all their time attacking the only thing that lends life objective significance.

But sin is paradoxical in that respect. Notice how self-destructive atheism is becoming. Our culture is becoming increasingly hostile to children–not to mention the elderly and the disabled. Take antinatalism. Take radical environmentalism, which regards humans as a parasite.

And this isn’t just ivory-tower theorizing. This is becoming public policy.

Atheism is evolving into a form of mass suicide. Humans turning against humanity. Turning on ourselves.

What would motivate such spiteful behavior? In this case, I think atheists are on a power trip. They love to control their own destiny and the destiny of others, even if that means murdering everyone on board. Power becomes a snare for some atheists. Intoxicated by power, even to their own demise.