Top Atheists Logic leads To God

Both Richard Dawkins(PhD Zoology) and Michael Ruse(PhD Philosophy of Science) reasoning on Morality lead to a conclusion that both deny, namely God exist.

Both Dawkins and Ruse remarks on Morality affirms the truthfulness of the two premises of Moral Argument for existence of God.

Premise 1. If God does not exist, then objective moral value and duties do not exist.

Richard Dawkins On Premise One:

In November 1995′s Scientic American p.81-85 Dawkins made it clear after his publication of River Out of Eden(BasicBooks, 1995) his position on Morals values and duties.

He writes in God’s Utility Function:

 

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the mine that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is , at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E Housman put it:

For nature, heartless, witless nature
Will neither care nor know

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

 

Four years earlier Richard Dawkin commented at Royal Institution Christmas Lecture, ‘The Ultraviolet Garden’, (No. 4, 1991), :

 

We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. … This is exactly what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object’s sole reason for living.

 

Some atheists, wants to give their own subjective meaning to what Dawkins view on Morals, namely that it only applies to nature, outside ourselves. But that is not what Dawkins is try to set forth. He clearly nails his meaning in his book, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), p112

 

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.

 

I agree with Dawkins, on that if  atheism is true, then objective moral value(good and bad) and Objective moral duties(right and wrong) are at the bottom do not exist. We simply dance to its music of nature.

Richard Dawkins chain of thinking affirms the truthfulness of premise one of Moral Argument, If God does not exist, then Objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Michael Ruse On Premise One:

In The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262, 268-269, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” Ruse argue that:

“The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when someone says, “love thy neighbor as thyself,” they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory.”

There is not foundation for the objective moral values and duties. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Morality in Evolution is just an aid to survive and pass on the gene.

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist

Richard Dawkins On Premise Two:

Dawkins affirm the objective moral values and duties as he condemns child abuse and some evils of religion as he “calling attention to an anomaly”(using his terms)

In the wake of the current scandal over child abuse by priests , I have had a letter from an American woman in her mid forties who was brought up Roman Catholic. She has two strong recollections from when she was seven. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And around the same time a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent was led to believe by the then official doctrine of her church. Her view now is that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst(Religion’s Real Child Abuse, by Richard Dawkins, 15 May 2006 )

Dawkins believes that it is objectively wrong to sexually abuse another person, thus affirms Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Michael Ruse On Premise Two:

In his book  Darwinism Defended (London: Addison-Wesley, 1982), p. 275. Ruse writes:

The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, “2+2=5.

Thus he also affirms that Objective moral values and duties do exist.

God Exists is where the Premises logically leads

What both fail to see is that, their own reasoning on morality leads logically by Proof by Contraposition to the conclusion,  both denies, that God exist.

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist

3. Therefore God exist

For the full explanation of  Moral Argument for Existence of God.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Top Atheists Logic leads To God

  1. “Dawkins believes that it is objectively wrong to sexually abuse another person, thus affirms Objective moral values and duties do exist.”

    How do you get that from the quote you provided? It looks to me like he simply describes two events that happened to a woman when she was a child, and gives her opinion on which event was worse.

    • Because He condemns sexually abuse as acts that deviates from what is standard(“anomaly”)

      The Idea of giving a link is for readers to read the whole article.

      • The anomaly he is referring to in that article is that victims of child sexual abuse by church officials are in an uproar over it, as is the general public, but very little is being said about what some people consider the mental abuse of children due to the threat of hell. Here are the three key sentences that make that point:

        “an obsessive concentration on sexual abuse by priests is in danger of blinding us to all their other forms of child abuse.

        The threat of eternal hell is an extreme example of mental abuse, just as violent sodomy is an extreme example of physical abuse. Most physical abuse is milder, and so is most of the mental abuse inherent in a typical religious education.”

        In any case, even if he is condemning sexual or mental abuse, he is just stating his opinion. As I have already said many many times on this blog, opinions about right and wrong do not require the existence of objective morality. Any standard he is comparing an action to is simply a standard created by humans. The “standard” is just the way things happen to be (or people agree they should be) at this point in time for a certain segment of the population.

      • It does not matter what ones opinion is, if ones opinion is different from Richard Dawkins’ namely sexual abuse is wrong, then that ones opinion is as wrong as 2 + 2 = 5.

      • The point you tried to make in your post is that Richard Dawkins and Michael Ruse both affirm the two premises of the Moral Argument for the existence of God. I agree that they both have affirmed the first premise, and I agree that Michael Ruse’ statement, when taken by itself (I don’t know the context) appears to affirm the second premise. But I have yet to see how Richard Dawkins is affirming the second premise in the article you linked to.

      • Because he view these acts as deviating from what is standard(“anomaly”) like 2 + 2 = 5 from a standard 2 + 2 = 4.

        Richard Dawkins affirms an objective moral standard that “Children ought not to be sexually abused”. It being his opinion or not, does not matter, since any other opinion(s) or view(s) that does not agree with Dawkins’ view is as wrong as 2 + 2 = 5(as Ruse will say).

      • He doesn’t say anything about those standards being objective. In fact, the only use of the word “standard” in his article is when he is referring to a fondling incident from his childhood, and he refers to those actions as being viewed differently by today’s standards. The phrase “today’s standards” clearly shows that he is referring to standards that change over time, which means they are not objective but instead evolve as society evolves and learns more about the long-term impacts of certain actions.

  2. Unfortunately, you, like many other theists, are not fully understanding what is being said by Dawkins, Ruse, and the like.

    While Objective Morality is a poorly defined term and is a premise which can be argued from a naturalistic world view, I will allow it simply for the sake of argument. My main contention lies with the second premise. I wonder how you would react to the ritualistic scarification inflicted on children – an act that is carried out with the total conviction that it is not only morally acceptable, but also, in some cases, religiously mandated. I wonder how you would try to convince a pedophile that he is morally incorrect apart from “God says you’re wrong!” How about a homosexual? You see, morality is not a well-defined term in-and-of-itself. Our concept of morality is prototypically a morality that has been brought on by the ‘Westernization’ of our society. Who is to say our morality is better than someone else’s?

    While morality may be illusory, one can try to judge it on a spectrum of what causes the most harm vs what brings forth the most happiness. It is on the basis of this litmus test (among others) that one can judge something to morally acceptable or repugnant.

    • Dear Some Musician,

      Thank you for wonderful comments and input. You charged many theists for not fully understanding Ruse and Dawkins, but you left out how and where is they misunderstandings are.

      Your Objection On Objective Moral Values and Duties do exist.

      Your objection is that, people live as if morality is subjective example; religious child offering, pedophiles, homosexual etc. Therefore from this, objective values and duties do not exist.

      You are in this position because of a misunderstand of the second premise.The premise is not arguing that people live accordingly to the objective moral values and duties, but that objective moral values and duties do exist

      Example: Child rape is objectively wrong( Ruse(like 2+2=5) and Dawkins(“anomaly”))

      This does not mean that children are not raped, but that it is objective morally wrong(duties) to rape a child.

      Holes in your approach:

      What is the based of “judg[ing] it on a spectrum of what causes the most harm vs what brings forth the most happiness.”? What happen when what brings one most happiness brings most harm to the other(example Catholic priest”one” sexually abusing children”other”)?

      • My objection is still valid. Let us take, for example, one of the 10 commandments – thou shalt not steal. Stealing in general is wrong. What if it is food to feed your family? The same thing can be applied to many moral dilemmas – lying, violence, etc. Even if we were to take what many would consider an abomination, human sacrifice, it is apparently encouraged when the sacrifice is made to the Abrahamic god (I reference the story of Abraham and Isaac as well as the story of Jephthah).

        Furthermore, there is not a ‘hole in my approach’. In the example you gave, you only took into consideration the priest and the child. I hate to be crass and use numbers in an example like this, but one must also take into consideration the effect the sexual abuse would have on the entire family (negative) as well as the many people who would surely be disillusioned once they find out their priest was the abuser (negative).

      • Objective morality does not mean that people do not do what is wrong, but that there are things that people do that are considered objectively wrong(like 2 + 2 = 5).

Comments are closed.