There’s Propably No God?

Atheist Campaign

Reading this slogan, I could not help but notice the desperation in the New atheists worldview.

1. There is Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying And Enjoy Your Life

In Twilight of the Idols and the Anti-Christ(1968), Friedrich Nietzsche’s understood the implication of the death of God  to societies’ moral landscape . He argued Morality “has truth only if God is the truth – it stands or falls with faith in God”(p.70). To Nietzche, If God did not exist, then moral facts did not exist neither.

Michael Ruse and Edward O. Wilson agrees that “ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes in order to get us to cooperate”(The evolution of ethics, New Scientist 17 p.108-28,1989)

If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. If this is true, should I stop worrying and start enjoying my life?  No! I am to start worrying because the death of God unleashes a morally dangerous society, where murder, rape, stealing, e.t.c would not really be wrong(just pitiless indifference).

This Godless society were “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.” If God does not exist then ” 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”, borrowing words from Richard Dawkins. Is this society which New atheist want us  to stop worrying and start enjoying my life?

If God does not exist, I ought start worrying.

Albert Einstein

2. Boy! Oh Boy! Albert Einstein Quote

When I read Einstein’s quote used to promote a poor slogan, I could not help but notice a cheap scores tactics namely  ” we are with the good guys”(Religion-bad-vs-Science-good), false dilemma.

What would Einstein say if he was alive to the New Atheists quoting him? Well in his time, he said:

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

(Prinz Hubertus zu Lowenstein, Towards the Further Shore: An Autobiography (Victor Gollancz, London, 1968), p. 156.)

Or,

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”

G. S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great (Macauley, New York, 1930), quoted by D. Brian, Einstein: A Life , p. 186.)

Baruch Spinoza

Einstein believed in an infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible God. The God whom Baruch Spinoza(1632-1677) believed.

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

Cable reply to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein’s (Institutional Synagogue in New York) question to Einstein, “Do you believe in God?”

Albert did not believe(rejected) in personal God as Christians do, due to the problem of evil and suffering. But folks, using Einstein to promote Atheism is simply “desperation”.

N.B: Objective morality hangs or falls on Existence of God. Many atheists get it wrong thinking that objective moral depend on faith in God.

Faith in God is not necessary for one to be moral.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “There’s Propably No God?

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

    Excellent! Something we agree on. Too bad you didn’t stop there . . . 😉

    “If this is true, should I stop worrying and stand enjoying my life?”

    Yes.

    “No! I am to start worrying because the death of God unleashes a morally dangerous society where murder, rape, stealing, e.t.c would not really wrong, but pitiless indifferece.”

    – All of those actions would still have consequences, much like they do now. Most people would still consider the consequences when deciding on their actions, much like they do now. Those who don’t consider the consequences get to suffer the consequences, much like they do now. So what would change?

    – Many of the consequences of those actions would continue to be decided by the same groups of people who decide them now. (Elected representatives in the case of a democracy, for instance.) So what would change?

    – If some people who are currently believers would, after becoming non-believers, suddenly start doing those actions that you and society as a whole considers “wrong,” doesn’t that say something about those people? Is that what would change, the former believers would start committing murder, rape and theft?

    • Dear Brap,

      Thank you for your comment. Remember I argue that Objective morality depend on Existence of God and not belief in God(thus believers and non-believers are bond it).

      Example the force of gravity if exists(and does) does not depend on belief or non-belief that it exist. The moment one jump of the cliff, it greets him with all it might. So you were are believer ans became a non-believer(or verse) it care not.

      And again raping, murder and stealing, e.t.c are objectively wrong. This does not mean people are not doing them. But just because some members of society are behaving that way it does, it does not make these acts morally right.

      As Ruse would say, raping a child is as wrong as 2 + 2 = 3 and Pro. Dawkins’ “anomaly”.

      In Christ,
      Prayson

      • So what would change if God did not exist, regardless of whether or not people believed? If God did not exist, and therefore objective morality didn’t exist, would society really change as you indicate in part 1 of the post? If so, why?

        I’m pushing this question because I think it is an unfounded fear held by many believers, and I have never seen any justification for that position, only assertions.

      • It is not only believers Brap, also non-believers(e.g Friedrich Nietzsche).

        1. If God did not exist, and therefore objective morality didn’t exist, would society really change as you indicate in part 1 of the post? If so, why?

        Yes it would. If God exists, all is His will and from His will we cannot escape. If not, it’s all our will and we are bound to show selves-will.(If you do not accept my self-will, well then it is just a pitiless indifference)

        Borrowing Nietzsche’s reasoning, No God, No moral facts. If there is no moral facts then the society would be as Richard Dawkins put it ” pitiless indifference”, nothing really wrong.(including you thinking I am wrong)

        If God did not exist, then we do not have a ontological ground for basing the objective morality. Meaning, there wont be a transcendent standard to which all societies are accountable.

        Example: Raping children is wrong regardless of whether a society allows or not allow it.

      • “It is not only believers Brap, also non-believers(e.g Friedrich Nietzsche).”

        Ok. For this discussion let’s consider the human population as a whole, regardless of their past, current or future beliefs.

        “If God did not exist, then we do not have an ontological ground for basing the objective morality. Meaning, there won’t be a transcendent standard to which all societies are accountable.”

        Are you suggesting the only reason societies enact laws against certain acts is due to a transcendent standard to which societies are accountable?

        Are you suggesting people would behave differently, regardless of their beliefs, if there were not a transcendent standard to which they are accountable?

        Are we accountable to this transcendent standard before death, and if so, are there any earthly consequences administered by the source of this transcendent standard? If we are only accountable after death, are the consequences heaven vs. hell?

      • Yes, I am suggesting that the only reason(ontologically) the societies enacts moral laws(could be after discovering them, Moral values are not invented, but discovered) against certain acts is due to a transcendent standard(otherwise it would be illusory, a position Michael Ruse hold).

        Yes I am suggesting people would behave differently. Keeping in mind, Existence of God is independent from belief or disbelief of God.

        We are accountable before and after death. If there is a transcendent standard, then there is a transcendent standard giver to whom we are accountable.

        If God did not exist, then I am not accountable for my actions before and after death. If God did not exist,then I am just a junk of molecules with no value, thus no any earthly consequences(and no in life after for there is no life after)

Comments are closed.