Julian Biaggini, a British atheist philosopher, founder and editor of The Philosopher's Magazine, wrote a book entitled Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, which is a very accesible and easy to read (but seriously flawed) defense of contemporary naturalistic atheism and the core beliefs implied in such worldview.
It's well known that metaphysical naturalism and atheism don't have the intellectual resources to give an objective basis for morality and, therefore, to give a rational defense of moral values and moral responsability.
Regarding the objectivity of moral values, Biaggini concedes that if naturalism is true, then there is not objective moral values (in the sense discussed in moral ontology): "If there is no single moral authority. . . we have to in some sense “create” values for ourselves. . . that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are... moral claims are judgments it is always possible to someone to disagree with... without saying something that is factually false... you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error" (Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 41-51. Emphasis in blue added)
I fully agree with Biaggini: if atheistic naturalism is true, then there are no objective moral values. They're purely and exclusively our own "creations" (in a similar way than we "create" other fantasies in our minds like unicorns... perhaps with the difference that such moral inventions are pragmatically useful).
Biaggini's concession is testimony of his intellectual honesty and his deep understanding of the implications of naturalistic atheism.
However, let's examine in more detail such implications:
1-Biagini concedes that if there is not a single moral authority (or God, which by definition would be the ultimate and supreme cosmic authority), then moral values are not objective; they're inventions or creations of our minds. (Note that this implies that, if moral values do exist objectively, then atheism is false. So, if you for example believe that discriminating atheists for fun or raping pseudoskeptics for pure pleasure is objectively, absolutely and intrinsically bad and wrong, you're rationally forced to conclude that atheism is false, since that atheism is incompatible with the objectivity of such moral rules and values).
2-A consequence of the above point is that moral claims are NOT objectively true or false (because they don't refer to anything objective at all). In Biaggini's words: "that means that moral claims are not true or false"
In other words, the moral claim "Social discrimination and bigoted attacks against atheists and pseudoskeptics is wrong" is not true nor false. You could agree with it, or your could disagree with it, but (if atheism is true) you cannot say that someone who disagrees with you is factually (objectively) wrong about any moral claim. In Biaggini's own words: "moral claims are judgments it is always possible to someone to disagree with... without saying something that is factually false... you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error"
Examine carefully the following moral claims:
1-The terrorist attacks against NYC and the Twin Towers were morally wrong.
2-The murder of John Lennon was morally wrong
3-Raping atheists is wrong
4-Torturing little babies for fun is bad
5-Destroying science and defending obscurantism is wrong
6-Social discrimination and active persecution against secular humanists/atheists (just because they're unbelievers in God) is wrong
7-Killing secular humanists, atheists and naturalists (just because they disagree about God's existence) is morally wrong
8-Teaching flat earth creationism is schools is wrong
9-Child prostitution is bad
10-Terrorism and violence exclusively based on religious fundamentalism and bigotry is always bad
11-Hitler's extermination of Jews is morally wrong
According to Biaggini's consistent naturalistic atheism, moral claims are not true nor false. Therefore, all the above moral claims are not true nor false either.
More specifically: If metaphysical naturalism/atheism is true, then all the above moral claims are not true nor false (This implies that, if you believe that a moral claim like "The terrorist attacks against the twin towers were (morally) wrong" is true, then you have to reject atheism). If atheism is true, whatever be someone's opinion about moral claims, you cannot say that such person is factually wrong (because moral claims don't refer to any objectively existing fact at all). It becomes a matter of PERSONAL (SUBJECTIVE) TASTE. From an intellectual point of view, there is not difference at all in your moral beliefs (perhaps you could judge moral beliefs in pragmatic terms: some beliefs "work" for certain ends and others don't; but from an intellectual, cognitive, truth-oriented perspective, all the moral beliefs are equivalent because they're not true nor false).
This is strong evidence of the monumental moral poverty of metaphysical naturalism, secular humanism and materialistic atheism. This worldview cannot give any ontological nor rational justification for moral values, moral behaviour and moral responsability, except on purely subjectivistic, relativistic, egoistic and pragmatic terms.
This is why it's monumentally hypocrital for atheists to condemm religion, spirituality, parapsychology, etc. on the grounds that believing in such things is "bad". Atheists who argue like that are demostrably charlatans, intellectually dishonest sophists unworthy of any kind of intellectual respect. They don't deserve attention nor any kind of intellectual recognition. They're also irrational and stupid.
It's important to realize that the (improbable) victory of metaphysical naturalism and secular humanism in society would imply the destruction of morality and cause social chaos. It means the destruction of society.
Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of people on Earth is not so naive nor irrational as to buy so obviously destructive and insane beliefs. And this is, in part, the reason why they strongly reject atheism.
It's well known that metaphysical naturalism and atheism don't have the intellectual resources to give an objective basis for morality and, therefore, to give a rational defense of moral values and moral responsability.
Regarding the objectivity of moral values, Biaggini concedes that if naturalism is true, then there is not objective moral values (in the sense discussed in moral ontology): "If there is no single moral authority. . . we have to in some sense “create” values for ourselves. . . that means that moral claims are not true or false in the same way as factual claims are... moral claims are judgments it is always possible to someone to disagree with... without saying something that is factually false... you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error" (Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 41-51. Emphasis in blue added)
I fully agree with Biaggini: if atheistic naturalism is true, then there are no objective moral values. They're purely and exclusively our own "creations" (in a similar way than we "create" other fantasies in our minds like unicorns... perhaps with the difference that such moral inventions are pragmatically useful).
Biaggini's concession is testimony of his intellectual honesty and his deep understanding of the implications of naturalistic atheism.
However, let's examine in more detail such implications:
1-Biagini concedes that if there is not a single moral authority (or God, which by definition would be the ultimate and supreme cosmic authority), then moral values are not objective; they're inventions or creations of our minds. (Note that this implies that, if moral values do exist objectively, then atheism is false. So, if you for example believe that discriminating atheists for fun or raping pseudoskeptics for pure pleasure is objectively, absolutely and intrinsically bad and wrong, you're rationally forced to conclude that atheism is false, since that atheism is incompatible with the objectivity of such moral rules and values).
2-A consequence of the above point is that moral claims are NOT objectively true or false (because they don't refer to anything objective at all). In Biaggini's words: "that means that moral claims are not true or false"
In other words, the moral claim "Social discrimination and bigoted attacks against atheists and pseudoskeptics is wrong" is not true nor false. You could agree with it, or your could disagree with it, but (if atheism is true) you cannot say that someone who disagrees with you is factually (objectively) wrong about any moral claim. In Biaggini's own words: "moral claims are judgments it is always possible to someone to disagree with... without saying something that is factually false... you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error"
Examine carefully the following moral claims:
1-The terrorist attacks against NYC and the Twin Towers were morally wrong.
2-The murder of John Lennon was morally wrong
3-Raping atheists is wrong
4-Torturing little babies for fun is bad
5-Destroying science and defending obscurantism is wrong
6-Social discrimination and active persecution against secular humanists/atheists (just because they're unbelievers in God) is wrong
7-Killing secular humanists, atheists and naturalists (just because they disagree about God's existence) is morally wrong
8-Teaching flat earth creationism is schools is wrong
9-Child prostitution is bad
10-Terrorism and violence exclusively based on religious fundamentalism and bigotry is always bad
11-Hitler's extermination of Jews is morally wrong
According to Biaggini's consistent naturalistic atheism, moral claims are not true nor false. Therefore, all the above moral claims are not true nor false either.
More specifically: If metaphysical naturalism/atheism is true, then all the above moral claims are not true nor false (This implies that, if you believe that a moral claim like "The terrorist attacks against the twin towers were (morally) wrong" is true, then you have to reject atheism). If atheism is true, whatever be someone's opinion about moral claims, you cannot say that such person is factually wrong (because moral claims don't refer to any objectively existing fact at all). It becomes a matter of PERSONAL (SUBJECTIVE) TASTE. From an intellectual point of view, there is not difference at all in your moral beliefs (perhaps you could judge moral beliefs in pragmatic terms: some beliefs "work" for certain ends and others don't; but from an intellectual, cognitive, truth-oriented perspective, all the moral beliefs are equivalent because they're not true nor false).
This is strong evidence of the monumental moral poverty of metaphysical naturalism, secular humanism and materialistic atheism. This worldview cannot give any ontological nor rational justification for moral values, moral behaviour and moral responsability, except on purely subjectivistic, relativistic, egoistic and pragmatic terms.
This is why it's monumentally hypocrital for atheists to condemm religion, spirituality, parapsychology, etc. on the grounds that believing in such things is "bad". Atheists who argue like that are demostrably charlatans, intellectually dishonest sophists unworthy of any kind of intellectual respect. They don't deserve attention nor any kind of intellectual recognition. They're also irrational and stupid.
It's important to realize that the (improbable) victory of metaphysical naturalism and secular humanism in society would imply the destruction of morality and cause social chaos. It means the destruction of society.
Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of people on Earth is not so naive nor irrational as to buy so obviously destructive and insane beliefs. And this is, in part, the reason why they strongly reject atheism.
0 comments:
Post a Comment