"Free Thinkers" Never Think For Themselves

“Free thinkers” never think for themselves. I find that to be a recurring theme. Will we ever find an atheist who rejects Christianity for reasons other than the 5 or so dogmatic irrationalities that are so readily chucked out in ignorance? “Your religion degrades women.” “You rob homosexuals of the joy of their lover.” “Subsitutionary atonement is child abuse.” The more that these statements are made, the more the notion that atheism lacks religiosity becomes absurd. Atheism is a particular worldview, with a particular set of ideas, with particular mentalities concerning ethics and morality. When you sign up for the club, you inevitably endorse a multitude of “free thinking” propagated myths that are forced into your mind. The atheistic worldview thinks for the “free thinker.”

Well, the author of one more blogsite (Loftus endorsed) has decided to plug herself into the mind-controlling, mind-destroying worldview of secular humanism. With the name “Stardust Musings and Thoughts for the Freethinker,” we have someone who has not thought for herself concerning her worldview in quite a while. Now, the “star dust” part of the blog is certainly enjoyable (magnificent pictures of God’s creation). The “free thinker” part is where she has trouble. But today she helps us answer the question, “How Can an Atheist Be Moral?” by posting an excerpt from For Goodness Sake by Dan Barker:

“How does an atheist account for the existence of objective moral values?” I often hear. “If you don’t believe in God, then what is your basis for morality?” We atheists find our basis for morality, of course, in nature. Where else would we look?

Ambiguity does not substitute well for rationality. What is this “nature”? Do atheists derive their basis for morality from flowers and bunnies? From trees and insects? Or perhaps Barker means “human nature.” But that simply begs the question because we are asking where the very moral human nature comes from. Atheism cannot account for a specific “human nature.” In fact, atheism cannot account for thinking and logic altogether. But let’s say that such a nature exists in the atheistic worldview. How does the atheist know that human nature is a rightful basis for morality? And what is the process by which morality is derived from human nature? And is the morality really morality in the true sense of the term?

Remember, the question is “From where does an atheist derive his morality?” The Christian response is that it is borrowed from the Christian worldview. It is simply not sufficient to answer this question by saying that morality is derived from how human’s act. The question is why humans act the way they do. And what is the basis for for making any connection between what humans do and what we should do? Is “morality” simply looking like the human race? Then, whatever the human race does is morality. And if this is the case, any notion of justice in the system of the courts is removed, and any ability for one person to call the act of another person wrong is stolen. If morality is simply “what humans do,” then morality is not morality in any true sense of the word. It becomes descriptive rather than prescriptive. Right and wrong are not what we should do, but what we do do. The atheist, therefore, has no basis whatsoever to ever make the statement, “John should not kill.” He can only make the statement, “John does not kill.” And that is morality?

Most atheists think moral values are real, but that does not mean they are “objective.” They can’t be.

Notice that the question has yet to be answered. Rather, the objection to the answer to the question is answered before the answer is even stated. Barker is well aware that atheistic “morality” is completely subjective, because it is dependent upon 1) the thinking of the individual, and 2) the actions of the world. Number 2 has already been shown above, where morality is simply what we do rather than why we do it, or what we should do. If that is not subjective enough, now place that within the realm of the interpretations of the individual. Wow. But Barker is going to attempt to justify this for us. He’s going to tell us that this extreme subjectivity is A-Ok because no values can be objective:

A value is not a “thing”–it is a function of a mind (which is itself a function). To be objective is to exist independently of a mind. So, an “objective value” is an oxymoron: the existence in the mind of something that is independent of the mind.

I agree: if the value exists simply in the mind of the individual, then it is completely subjective. But what if that value exists in the mind of God? And what if God has placed that same value within the minds of his creatures? Perhaps now we have objective morality. The notion of the non-existence of God necessitates his existence, for if he does not exist, morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature do not exist. If God does not exist, there is no hope that I understand the words on this computer screen, there is no hope that A does not equal non-A, there is no hope that matter as we know it will not be completely different by tomorrow, and that everything ever written in a science book will be worthless, and there is no hope that my next door neighbor won’t break into my house tonight and eat me alive, and his action considered “right” by those who attend the funeral. But thankfully, God does exist, and I thank Mr. Barker for helping me prove that tonight.

However, most atheists think that values, though not objective things in themselves, can be objectively justified by reference to the real world. Our actions have consequences, and those consequences are objective.

More unjustified asserted assumptions. Atheist Dan Barker continues to borrow from the principles of my worldview. “Objectively justified by reference to the real world”? How? Don’t just tell us what “most atheists” think, tell us the basis for their thinking. Why is their thinking correct? He states, “Our actions have consequences.” Yes, but so what? So I kill a guy. The consequence is that he is dead. Perhaps he was my milk man. The consequence is that I will no longer receive milk. But what if I don’t like milk anyway. In fact, what if I detest milk and did myself a favor by killing the milk man? Why is my action of killing him wrong? It doesn’t affect me. Yes, it affects his family and others. But why should I care? Why does the action become wrong simply because others do not like it?

Perhaps morality is simply a general consensus of what everyone likes. But how do we know what everyone likes? I don’t remember taking the survey. And what if everyone likes to kill women? Does killing women then become right? And how do we know that morality can be derived from general consensus? How is this “objectively justified” in any sense?

Although most atheists accept the importance of morality, this is not conceding that “Morality” exists in the universe, a cosmic object waiting to be discovered. The word “morality” is just a label for a concept, and concepts exist only in minds. If no minds existed, no morality would exist.

Morality exists only in minds. But how do I know that what is in my mind is the same thing as what is in your mind? In fact, how do I even know that you have a mind? I mean, of course I have a mind. I presuppose it based upon my existence. It is necessarily assumed. But it is not a necessary assumption that you have a mind. What if I am under the belief that I am the only one in the universe who has a mind? Does what is in my mind then become morality?

But what if moral concepts exist in God’s mind, and what if they are derived from his nature, and what if he has put those very moral concepts into the minds of his creatures? Then we have objective morality. But don’t pretend that we have any “morality” (in the prescriptive sense, concerning what we should do) if its basis is simply in the individual’s perception of the state of the world.

Morality is simply the intention to act in ways that minimize harm. Since harm is natural, its avoidance is a material exercise. Organisms suffer as they bump into their environment, and as rational animals, we humans have some choice about how this happens. If we minimize harm and enhance the quality of life, we are moral. If we don’t, we are immoral or amoral, depending on our intentions. To be moral, atheists have access to the simple tools of reason and kindness. There is no Cosmic Code Book directing our actions.

Harm in what sense? Is this merely physical harm, or does it include emotional and economical harm? Why is it “wrong” for me to openly slander someone? This has no physical harm on me, the person, or on the human race. Perhaps it could have emotional or economical harm. But isn’t the measurement of emotional and economical harm a tad bit over subjective? I mean, would the atheist agree with me if I were to argue that the emotional and economic harm that results from an abortion constitutes that action as “wrong”? Or what if I were to argue that the emotional and economical harm that result from homosexual marriage constitutes that action as “wrong”? How can we possibly, honestly survey the subjective notion of “harm”? But this is often used as an argument: “Whether or not homosexuals marry does not hurt you!” Well, first of all, this presupposes the assumption that something is wrong only if it hurts someone (which seems to be the only (unjustified) basis for morality in the atheistic worldview whatsoever). But this also does not take into account the subjective measurement of “harm.” How much “harm” must be down before an act becomes “hurtful” and therefore “wrong”? What if I simply don’t like homosexual marriage? Is that enough “harm” brought to me to make the action “wrong”? Or, we could put this in the Christian perspective. Homosexuality harms the Christian in two ways 1) it promotes a mentality that is damaging to personal sanctification, and 2) it redefines the family unit. Now, perhaps neither of these two things are correct. But to the Christian, they are still harmful in that they prevent him from accomplishing his goals. What do we do now? We have the homosexual who says that a law against his marriage “harms” him, and we have a Christian who says that a law in support of the marriage “harms” him (but in neither case do we have someone who is physically harmed). Which one is right? The one that “harms” more? How can we possibly measure that? How can we compare physical harm to emotional harm or to economical harm? Is a broken leg more harmful than a lifetime of depression? If so, why?

Well then, maybe we go by consensus: what most people think is most harmful. But how can we possibly arrive at a consensus? Are we going to take a worldwide, or at least geographically relevant, survey of the issue? But even then, how will a majority opinion, or a dictatorship of a 51%, help us arrive at what is more harmful? Perhaps 70% of the population believes a broken leg to be more harmful than a life time of depression. Or, perhaps about 80% of the states believes that the harm against the world by allowing the institution of marriage to be applied to homosexuals is greater than the harm to homosexuals caused by not allowing them to marry (which they do, by the way)? Now what? And is the majority right?

Of course, relative to humanity, certain general actions can be deemed almost uniformly right or wrong. Without the Ten Commandments, would it never have dawned on the human race that there is a problem with killing? The prohibitions against homicide and theft existed millennia before the Israelites claimed the copyright.

This still fails the to answer the questions posed above. What if I believe that the harm made against me by my milk man delivering milk to me every day is more harmful than my eliminating his existence? You might say, “Well, that’s ridiculous!” Why?

The way to be moral is to learn what causes harm and how to avoid it. This means investigating nature–especially human nature: who we are, what we need, where we live, how we function, and why we behave the way we do.

Again, this sounds like a great plan, but how is it going to work? How are we going to “learn what causes harm,” taking into account all of the forms and degrees of harm? And how are we going to arrive at a consensus concerning “what causes harm and how to avoid it”? And if we do arrive at a consensus, does that mean it is a right standard? Again, people change. What they think is harmful changes. What they like and dislike changes. What if the consensus of men is that the existence of women is harmful, and what if the consensus of women is that the existence of men is harmful? What then becomes “morality”? Which group is bigger, perhaps? But then you might say, “Either view is ridiculous, because without the existence of either group, the human race could not continue.” Well, what if it is the unanimous consent of the human race that the human race does not need tocontinue, or even should not continue? In your worldview, is there any reason which necessitates the continuing existence of the human race?

Why should I treat my neighbor nicely? Because we are all connected. We are part of the same species, genetically linked. Since I value myself and my species, and the other species to whom we are related, I recognize that when someone is hurting, my natural family is suffering. By nature, those of us who are mentally healthy recoil from pain and wish to see it ended.

What if I don’t value myself and my species? And what if my species doesn’t value itself? Does killing then become right? If “no,” then why not? Why are you placing some external standard upon the “free thinking values” of the individual and corporate mind? If “yes,” well there’s your “morality” for you.

…Yet notice how leading theists deal with the real world: “Ye have the poor with you always,” said the “loving” Jesus, who never lifted a finger to eradicate poverty, wasting precious ointment on his own luxury rather than selling it to feed the hungry (Matthew 26:6-11).

Frankly, Jesus didn’t have the same atheistic, naturalistic, and irrational agenda that you have, Mr. Barker. Jesus cared about the soul. He cared about eternity. He had an objective morality that was based upon himself, and he knew what was important.

Jefferson may have been wrong to call compassion an “instinct” because many appear not to have it–it seems optional. But it is fortunate that there are enough of us who love life enough to protect ourselves from those who don’t. We have systems of law, enforcement, justice, and defense. We encourage kind, ethical actions through moral education and critical thinking.

If I haven’t already destructed Dan Barker’s statements, he does it for me! His statements here completely ruin whatever basis for morality he thought he had. “Compassion” is optional to the human mind. Not everyone shares this goal. Barker, therefore, cannot act as if he shares this common goal to continue the existence of the human race and make everyone happy. Most people simply care about what makes them happy. So what happens if Mr. Barker’s views become a minority? What happens if the consensus of the human race is to destroy the human race? Is killing wrong then, Mr. Barker? Maybe in Dan Barker’s mind it will be, but Dan Barker has no basis for his morality other than his personal views, and everything that he has written in this article is simply a lie. This paragraph shows us that Barker does not really believe the hogwash he has promoted as his basis for his “morality.” He just cares about his own personal views, and he wants the rest of the world to follow them. But Barker isn’t God. Only someone like God can have the whole world follow one system of objective morality. Only if God exists can we be moral people. The contrast speaks volumes.

But most believers, including Christians who are ordered to “bring into captivity every thought unto the obedience of Christ,” have an underlying distrust of human reasoning. Yearning for absolutes, they perceive relativism–the recognition that actions must be judged in context–as something dangerous, when it is the only way we can be truly moral.

Whatever concerns theists have had against relativism have been proven here: there is nothing wrong with eliminating the human race if it is the consensus of the human race that the human race should be eliminated.

Theists are afraid people will think for themselves; atheists are afraid they won’t.

I’ll let the reader respond to this one.

Evan May.