Atheist Affirms Existence Of 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:

Quote:

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.

Unqoute

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

Quote

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.

Unquote

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

Quote:

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.

Unquote:

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 Added: Monday, 15 May 2006 at 1:00 AM)

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

Where does 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

11 thoughts on “Atheist Affirms Existence Of God

  1. 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

    Isn’t that the same as saying:

    1. Penguins can’t fly.

    2. I can’t fly.

    3. Therefore I am a penguin.

    • Not close Larry. The moral argument is valid modus tollen “denying the consequent”: “If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.”(¬P→¬Q, Q, P)

      Your example is invalid because X and Y can have identical features without X being Y. I am not a bird, my dog is not a bird, therefore I am my dog which is false. 🙂

      Prayson

  2. man you really need to learn proper reasoning: like stated in other posts it is proven that morality does not need the inference of god. the difference is that in nature theres no conscience as such to make moral decisions, but we as humans do have a conscience and are therefore capable of making moral decisions, even the non believers. unless youre saying were basically just animals, in which case id like to know where you think all the moral judgements that the early christian writers told about come from? from god? if all morality stems from god, what about buddha, ghandi, also, dividing nature and humanity is a really religious dualist move. you know that theres not an actual thing called nature, just like theres no humanity as such? theres just lots of people, and in generalized terms they are called humanity. but: generalisation leaves out essential information, ie the differently inclined. a generalization is never a fact. and btw, michael ruse is both an agnostic and an atheist. since you believe justin martyrs statement that one needs to be christian to know christianity, it follows that hes wrong, since hes not christian, and cannot therefore comment intelligently on creationist views or any other matters pertaining god for that matter. so to recap:

    premise 1 is wrong: one needs no god in order to live a morally just life. furthermore theres no proof that you do, but theres proof that you dont need to believe in god for this.

    premise 2 is wrong too:moral judgment is a construct of cultural and developmental views and capacities, and as such they greatly differ depending on who one is, and where one comes from.

    therefore: premise 3 is wrong, or better: theres no sound proof for it, either out there or in your line of reasoning. 😉 we would first need to have 2 situations to check this, and they are incompatible and unproven: we need to see if theres lack of perceived morality in both a god based society and in a non-god society. since we cant, this whole discussion is again loose sand.

    • you misread the premises, it is stating that, “if OBJECTIVE moral values exist, God exists”
      the question is “do objective moral values exist”
      for you to remain atheist you have to say no, and under that belief, “a construct of cultural and developmental views and capacities” could be conceivable in which rape would be acceptable.
      but do you really think that rape could ever be morally correct? that is the point of the argument, sure you can deny it, but it makes you pay the “price-tag” of accepting that rape could be morally correct.

      also, your statement “a generalization is never a fact” is a generalization of generalizations… lol

      also in your statements “michael ruse is both an agnostic and an atheist. since you believe justin martyrs statement that one needs to be christian to know christianity, it follows that hes wrong, since hes not christian, and cannot therefore comment intelligently on creationist views or any other matters pertaining god for that matter. ”
      you are equating Christianity with “creationist views or any other matters pertaining to God”

      if Christianity is true and the contents of the bible are true then the verse “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” would justify Martyr’s statement, but his statement does not imply that you cannot comprehend creationism or other matters pertaining to God, it would only state you do not understand the glory of Christ,
      any non christian would not believe what the “fully glory of Christ” is to Martyr, it therefore follows that his statement is logical from his viewpoint and does not imply what you said it does.

      • Oxforddictionaries.com definition of the word “Objective”-

        “1(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: historians try to be objective and impartial

        not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:”

        Objective morality is NOT dependent upon the mind, ANY mind. This includes God. To argue that objective moral values exist is to argue that morality is not contingent upon God at all (depending on your definition of God), unless you don’t define God as a mind that has created everything.

        This means an atheist is perfectly consistent in accepting that objective moral values exist because that does not necessitate the existence of God.

        Furthermore, the argument crushes itself under the weight of its own misunderstanding of basic words. For example: the word “Value”. Value is definitionally subjective because any value requires a valuation by a subject. So it doesn’t make sense to say “objective moral values” because you’re contradicting yourself in just those three words.

        You said “and under that belief, ‘a construct of cultural and developmental views and capacities’ could be conceivable in which rape would be acceptable.
        but do you really think that rape could ever be morally correct?”

        Because morality is inherently subjective it is possible that there is a person out there in this world that believes rape is morally permissible. I can accept that fact while myself regarding rape as immoral. But let’s not turn to the God of the bible for our morality either, because it was things like rape and slavery and infanticide and genocide that God seemed to think were not just morally permissible, but morally necessary for God’s end goals.

        The fact that you would think those things are immoral tells me that you don’t follow this God’s moral judgements, you reason your own. And you’re better at doing this than your God.

  3. I don’t see why you think Ruse affirmed premise two. There is a popular theory among ethicists called “Error Theory” in which they think all moral statements are erroneous. This is to say that the statement “it is morally acceptable to rape,” is just as wrong as saying “it is morally unacceptable to rape.” All moral statements, according to this theory, are false. In this way, someone could hold, as Ruse seems to, that “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,'” without committing themselves to premise two of the Moral Argument.

    Now, I don’t know if Ruse actually holds to error theory. He may not. But my point is that his quote doesn’t necessarily lend his support for premise two. Of course, maybe the context surrounding the quote lends his support for the premise. I don’t know, as I don’t read Ruse much.

    Take care and have a wonderful day : )

Follow 3 Comment Covenants: What Say You?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s