What A Relief

Christianity (and religious belief generally) is sometimes criticized for being nothing more than an emotional crutch of some sort by its critics.  Its adherents find solace in knowing an eternal reward is awaiting them for their faithful devotion.  There is something comforting and fulfilling in believing you will be rewarded for your efforts, and thus only behave in hopes of reward; something that is seen as a liability.  This is seen as a bit selfish, or self-serving about the process which sullies the good which has been done.  Skeptics, on the other hand, don’t fashion their behavior toward the hopes of somehow benefiting in the afterlife for it.  Doing good for the sake of doing good is good enough (See: For Goodness Sake).  They aren’t looking for rewards on the afterlife and seek no solace from their deeds.

However, I do think Atheists seek solace in their beliefs.  In the same way the Christian finds comfort in the prospects of an afterlife, the Atheist finds solace in the prospect of there being no afterlife.  There is a certain consolation in believing there will be no recompense for a lifetime of transgression.  A diplomatic immunity for your life’s bad deeds, so to speak.  Not having to answer (or at least believing you won’t) for the misdeeds of life can be quite a relief.

All one’s undiscovered crimes and maleficence are completely free and clear.  Think of the freedom.  I recall back to grade school, there was this one teacher who had a nasty habit of administering pop quizzes without a moments notice.  Every so often, when the class completed the test, she announced that the test was just practice — it didn’t count and our scores would not be held against our grade.  There were two kinds of reactions to this news: Relieved and disappointed.

Presuming atheistic naturalism to be true, the Christians would represent the disappointed students, in that for all their efforts and self-sacrifice believing they were being piously obedient to a God they believed existed; all was in vain.  All the passed up opportunities to indulge in fun things the Bible has placed on the don’t list: sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll.  Just like the students who took the time to study and focus on the test at hand, the Christians forewent life’s “sinful” distractions.  But all the effort was for nothing…suckers.

On the other hand, the students who represent the Atheists weren’t prepared for the test and so is quite relieved the score will not count.  They did whatever they were inclined to do, hindered only by their own conscience.  Now, I wonder what would happen to the study habits of a student if he knew none of the scores on any test or assignment were going to count for anything?  Studying would be optional.  No more worries about failing, no more worries about discipline for non-participation, no more worries about getting sent to the principal’s office for mischief.

Of course, I am not suggesting that Atheists cannot act morally, or do good deeds.  I am also not saying that Atheists will inevitably decline into moral decay and become seething miscreants either.

Atheism provides solace and comfort — in the opposite direction from Christianity — knowing (believing) there is no ultimate accountability to a Just and Holy God for moral crimes committed against Him, however inconsequential, bestows a sense of relief even if it is not the direct motivation for holding the conviction.  Atheism provides (im)moral options even if those options are not explored.

Comments

  1. I agree that we all (theists and atheists) “take solace in our beliefs.” I just disagree with your particulars. Atheists don’t get comfort in escaping the wrath of Allah, Yahweh, or countless other stories. They, like everyone else, take comfort in positive things, not in escaping your fictions.

    I think you are mistaken when you say:

    the Atheist finds solace in the prospect of there being no afterlife. There is a certain consolation in believing there will be no recompense for a lifetime of transgression. A diplomatic immunity for your life’s bad deeds, so to speak.

    I don’t know of any Atheists that think this way, though there may be some. When an animal cruelly slaughters a human, or a bacteria kills children, I do not wish they could pay for their horrible crimes. I don’t have to invent a hell for human-killing carnivores and bacteria. It would not comfort me to create such a thing. I expect them to suffer the same fate as me after death. It is just natural. There is no notion of any of us escaping punishment. You make it seem like the natural default position is for the human mind to expect torment after death. That is a fun empirical claim — I wonder how it would be tested.

    A theological question:
    You said,

    “Presuming atheistic naturalism to be true, the Christians would represent the disappointed students, in that for all their efforts and self-sacrifice believing they were being piously obedient to a God they believed existed; all was in vain.”

    This seems to say you believe that it is YOUR effort, YOUR self-sacrifice, YOUR piety, YOUR obedience is what saves you. I thought Christians believed it was grace and that all such things are human efforts and worthless. But maybe I misunderstand your theology. OR, you give away a certain self-righteousness.

    • To be fair, I didn’t say it was a conscious self affirmation. But it is built into the framework of the atheist worldview that there is no reward or consequence in the ultimate sense. So they are restrained by their own conscience.

  2. “So they are restrained by their own conscience.”

    Well, statistics prove you wrong. As even you confess, we see all sorts of “restraint” on behavior in Atheists. If you understand how human morality has and is evolving, you would understand that theist have absolutely no monopoly on morality! And the data proves it. Your claims seem inconsistent.

    • Except that no one said atheists have no morality. I can always point to something greater than myself to keep me in line. Atheists have only their own limits that they impose on themselves. Dahmer is a perfect example of an atheist living according to his conscience.

  3. It isn’t about a Christian’s obedience, self-sacrifices, effort, and piety that saves him. It’s Jesus. And when he accepts Jesus, his life is changed. He wants to do those things. While those things do not save him, once saved he does them- he dies to self in obedience to Christ- because he loves Him.

    • Hi Paula

      I am speaking from the atheist’s perspective that Christians find solace in knowing there is heaven awaiting for acting morally; not necessarily about being saved.

      Of course it is only by grace through a trust in Christ’s atoning work on the cross that we are saved. I wholly agree with what you said.

  4. I was actually referring to the last paragraph in Sabio’s first comment… and I really liked this blog post. I hadn’t ever looked at the way you described. And I’m looking forward to reading more of your blog. :)

  5. Christians find solace in the reward of life after death.
    Atheists find solace in the opportunity to engage in debauchery and get away with it.
    Your argument is framed entirely to your benefit, but to the detriment of good logic.
    Christians find solace in the reward of life after death, and are controlled in their actions by the fear of punishment after death.
    Atheists are excited by the singular and fleeting life they have – for tomorrow we may die. Atheists are inspired and restricted by the best actions – lying is personally demoralizing and turns the community against oneself, and so on with all the secular ethical arguments.

    You’ve tried to call the atheists the calculating and dishonest evil individuals while calling Christians the good and just who accept the reward as an afterthought.

    Why not frame the atheists as the good and just that do so with the knowledge that their actions, if not rewarded in life, will never be rewarded. You can frame the Christians as the evil and calculating miscreants who are restrained solely by fear of punishment after death. If you did that, you would still have a one-sided argument, but you’d at least be consistent with Christian original sin.

    • You’re right, atheists do good without ever hoping for reward in the age to come. But conversely they can “sin” with impunity because there is likewise no punishment. You can claim they are restrained by society, but it is a self imposed restriction. If you are willing to deal with or chance evasion of the consequences then all is as acceptable as you see fit.

  6. “Dahmer served his time at the Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin, where he ultimately declared himself a born-again Christian. This conversion occurred after viewing evangelical material sent to him by his father.[47] Roy Ratcliff, a local preacher from the Churches of Christ, met with Dahmer and agreed to baptize him.”

    So it really doesn’t matter what you do as long as you collect your ‘get out of jail free’ card at some point. Christianity really has no moral requirements at all, just a collection of confusing, contradictory, and suggested guidelines that are divorced completely from the Grace that is all one needs to avoid punishment for even the worst of crimes.

  7. JB :
    You are willing to admit, I think, that Christians have not upper hand on actual measured-on-the-ground moral behavior.

    But if Christians and Atheist behave the same, and Christian “point” to God’s law, and Atheist’s “point” to evolved mechanisms of cooperation and love which are beneficial, what does it matter?

    If Muslims point to Allah, Hindus point to Krishna, Chinese point to their family as their motivators of the same behavior, what does it matter as long as they behave well?

    Note that Paula said,

    And when [a Christian] accepts Jesus, his life is changed. He wants to do those things.

    See, Paula thinks Christians are better. Do you agree that she is wrong?

    You said,

    But conversely they can “sin” with impunity because there is likewise no punishment. You can claim they are restrained by society, but it is a self imposed restriction.

    We contend your behavior is self-constrained too. You tell yourself stories about Yahweh and Jesus just like Hindus tell themselves stories about Krishna or Rama. We don’t care what stories you all tell yourselves, we all do the same thing. And not believing in some deity like Krishna, Allah, or Yahweh does not seem to be what determines behavior.

    Out of one corner of your mouth you say, “Yes, Atheists act moral too.” But out of another corner you are smiling and saying, “Yes, but we have a real compass, yours is fake.” Yet how would we know that if we act the same? My suspicion part of you does not believe we act the same. Part of you really thinks Atheists behave worse than Christians — just like Paula believes. Studies have shown this self-righteous attitude is prevalent among Christians. I don’t think you slipped in your theology above, I think you showed your colors.

    • Sabio, you have a nasty habit of trying to figure out what “I really mean”. You should stop doing that.

      What I am saying is regardless of how good some individual atheist acts, there is no worry for acting bad, except for getting caught in the here and now.

  8. Terrance H. says:

    John,

    Speaking for only myself here, my non-belief has never once provided me any comfort or liberty for any reason. Quite the opposite, in fact.

  9. Really? I’d take it the other way around. If you are a Christian, you can get away with a few sins, provided you are making an effort to be moral, because God is forgiving, knows you’re human, and will save you if you have faith. If you are an atheist, there is no such solace. Reality does not forgive. Sure, no one will punish you for your actions. But, if you murder, someone is dead. If you steal, someone is poorer. Fine. That’s well known. That’s the easy part of morality to follow. Perhaps this is just Catholicism rubbing off on me, but I’ve always been taught that a “sin of omission” is just as bad, as, uh, the more active kind (perhaps I would remember its name if I hadn’t made a habit of doing math homework during religion class.) I’d say the Church has it right on this one. This kind of morality is HARDER to follow as an atheist. As a Christian, there is a God up there who knows you can only do so much. As an atheist, there isn’t. The world doesn’t care how hard you try, it cares how much you actually get done. There is no A for effort. Maybe the college admission gods will pat me on the back for having over 500 volunteer hours, just like every other overachiever. Maybe God in the sky (yes, yes, I know your God is not literally in the sky) would to. But reality offers no such praise. Instead, it asks for more. It knows I am not truly at my limit. It knows I should drink water instead of tea, the growing and shipping of which is a waste of water and fossil fuel. It knows I should not waste time and electricity writing this. But here I sit with a teacup and a laptop, and there is no one to forgive me. Oh, those immoral options are there, and if one includes sins of omission, I am certainly taking them. I suspect you are too. After all, we are both human and, inherently, a tad selfish. But, unless one truly believes one’s self the metaphorical center of the universe, selfishness is irrational. So, yes, there is a worry for acting bad! If you do bad things, bad things happen.

    That said, I freely admit take solace in other aspects of atheism/naturalism: the vast timescales of evolution, both cosmic and biological. The complex emergent properties of simple laws. The universe, beautifully run from the bottom up, not the top down.

  10. @John

    you said “What I am saying is regardless of how good some individual atheist acts, there is no worry for acting bad, except for getting caught in the here and now.”

    how about this –

    Regardless of how bad some individual Christian acts, there is no worry for acting bad because they are forgiven if they believe Jesus died for their sins and that’s all it really takes to get into heaven forever and ever.

    After all it’s belief before behavior. Most Christians, including you, will be quick to point out that one cannot get into heaven on acts alone.

  11. Sabio,

    No, I do not believe Christians behave better than atheists. Some non-religious people have higher morals/standards than some so-called Christians (you know them by their fruit). One doesn’t need to be religious to have morals and standards. The difference between a Christian an atheist is that as a Christian they have their morals and standards to honor God, to try and live a life pleasing to Him. I don’t know enough about atheists to say why they live clean and decent lives- except maybe even know they it’s wrong to abuse their body with drugs and alcohol, to kill and to steal, etc.

    Please, do not tell me what I believe. Nor do I have a self-righteous attitude. You are basing this, I don’t know, judgement of Christians from the ones who merely claim it without knowing what it truly means and therefore they are not truly living a Christian lifestyle. A true Christians knows they are no better than the next man, for we all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. They do not judge someone and look down their noses at them. Rather, like Christ, they offer only love and kindness. Knowing that anyone, just as themself, can receive Christ’s gift of eternal life.

  12. @ Paula
    (1) Moral Development
    So, you say Christians act to please their invisible big daddy while Atheists do it just because they think it is right.
    Hmmm, which sounds more mature and trustworthy.

    (2) Why we Act
    I think it is naive to believe that Christians think, “Gee, should I open the door for that person so my invisible-daddy will be pleased.” or “Hmm, should I cheat on this test, no, my daddy will be hurt”. I don’t think so. We all make decisions similarly. We all come to decide what we think is right vs wrong and either act or don’t act on it.

    BTW, I am a former Christian — I don’t feel the least bit different in how I make choices now vs then. And noone could tell a difference either — oh yeah, I don’t go to church or pray.

    Paula, you begin saying,

    No, I do not believe Christians behave better than atheists.

    Then you end saying,

    [True Christians], like Christ, they offer only love and kindness.

    So just like JB, part of you wants to pretend that we act the same, but another part of you believes very differently. You have a public face and a believer’s face.

  13. @JB
    You said to Z,

    You show me a Cgeistian [Christian] who loves their sin and does so with a sense of “I’ve got my ticket to heaven” and you haven’t shown me a Christian

    Do you believe Christians can backslide? When they are backsliden, are they still Christians? If the answer to both of those are “Yes” then your challenge to Z is without base and you again show that your mixed mind: At one time you admit both Christians and atheists do good and sin, but the next you say a “Real” Christian wouldn’t do certain things. This is blatantly false.

  14. In speaking about moral development, it is important to understand the dependent child-father relationship (“daddy”) and to differentiate from a real relationship in any normal sense of that word, thus “invisible”. What I said was absolutely true but it did not buy into Christian jargon. So it was not derogatory or inaccurate, but it did not have the decorum expected in a Christian privileged society so as to be sure no other false notions sneak on board.

  15. Terrance H. says:

    Paula,

    I don’t often agree with Sabio, but I have to on this one. I think an important distinction can be made between someone who lives a clean, moral life because he or she knows it’s the right thing to do, and then someone who lives a clean, moral life because he or she is trying to win favor with their creator. I think this is an important difference that speaks to the character of each individual.

  16. For a Christian to lead a clean and decent life it’s not about winning favor with their Creator, it’s about His changing them, their wants and desires therefore they lead a clean and decent life. They, too, know it’s the right thing to do and just because I didn’t say it doesn’t mean they don’t know it. Apparently I should have added that. So yes, Christians also do right, leading clean and decent lives knowing it’s right. But they also do it because God is in their life and they’re striving to live their life in a Christ-like manner.

    And my comment about true Christians, like Christ, offering love and kindness was due to the mentioning of Christians judging and looking down on others. I was no way saying I believe they are better than anyone else. You misread and twisted it to believe what you want.

    If God didn’t make a difference in your life, obviously when you claimed Christianity, you were merely claiming the title. Anyone can claim it, living it is truly different.

  17. Terrance H. says:

    Paula,

    And they’re striving to live in a “Christ-like” manner because they’re afraid of what may become of them when they die if they don’t. Atheists don’t believe anything happens to them when they die – outside of their energy being transferred to some other form of matter near them at the time – so they’re not concerned with pleasing a mythical being for reward. Given that, I do think a distinction can be made.

    But I’m not a rabid atheist concerned with making Christians look silly. I realize that the words of Jesus Christ – to anyone, not just Christians – are very powerful and you can’t help but to want to live by them. His words can usher in a change, as you said. I realize that. But I also see, and I’m sure Sabio does as well, intense hypocrisy among religious people. I, in fact, have never met a Christian that wasn’t hypocritical in at least one aspect. They’re either sexual deviants behind closed doors or money-grubbers. Seriously. It’s always those two, in my experience. And so when you’re a non-Christian on the outside viewing this stuff, you can’t help but question the character of Christians when they do behave morally. You wonder if it’s not simply for some divine reward.

    Secondly, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t twist anything you said. Sabio may have; I didn’t. I addressed one point and that’s it. I don’t know if you believe Christians are better or worse than atheists and I don’t much care. You can take that up with Sabio, not me.

    I believe human beings to be a greedy species and while you may have a few here and there who live decently and morally, I don’t believe most do, and if they do, it’s because they’re expecting some return on their moral investment after they die.

    • To be clear for the Atheists responding. The post is not about whether an Atheist can behave morally. Rather it is about there being no fear of ultimate reprisal for their misbehavior. The only moral restraint upon theor behavior is self imposed anyway.

      On a side note, there is no nobility is doing what you want, and not doing what you don’t want. Acting how you feel like acting is not a character virtue.

      for what its worth, Paula, I think you’re spot on.

  18. Marshall Art says:

    Leading a clean and moral life by who’s standards? If they are our standards, they are subjective totally and no one can tell another what is right and proper for him, which is common atheist dogma (usually spoken “who are YOU to tell ME how to live?”). Christians imperfectly live by God’s standards. Some of those have been adopted by atheists, especially those too weak and cowardly to live their own lives as total atheists. Some of them will proclaim that they have morals because it’s how the species best survives and is the most beneficial for all as if that means anything without a Supreme Being and afterlife. It really doesn’t. If atheists think they are more mature because they act well without a god over them, the next atheist will have a whole different criteria for choosing what behaviors are “good” or “not good” and the first might suffer as a result. Is the second one less moral? No. There is no moral without God, just something each individual without God chooses to call moral because it works for him.

    The solace an atheist might take in doing good is meaningless and has no true value because he’ll only die and become dust, his good deeds with him because there will be nothing but death gained for his efforts.

    But then again, what is good? What is evil? It is what each individual wants it to be and it never is anything else. They can say that it is consensus opinion about what is best for all, but there is no demand to comply that can’t be justified or outright ignored on the slightest whim.

    But the Christian always has God’s Word and God’s people for accountability. A Christian doesn’t have to worry about choosing how to live in a manner beneficial for all. He needs only to live to please God and by doing so, benefits are gained by everyone, and more so the more people that do as well.

    As for backsliding, Christians are always tempted and most struggle with their own personal demons. Being weak and succumbing is not the same as willfully engaging in what one normally regards as wrong. Backsliders often feel guilt while they are engaging in the sin that tempted them, never really succeeding in ignoring their consciences.

    For atheists, they only need to put forth the notion that life isn’t black and white in order to enjoy whatever “sins” they normally avoid.

  19. Sabio

    So then if “invisable big daddy” is accurate without buying into the Christian paradigm, then referring to Buddah as the fat little oriental guy is just ok with you, since its accurate? Spare me.

  20. Yes, refer to “Sid” (the Buddhah) as you like — though I doubt he was fat.

    For what it is worth, I think Paula and you are both spot off: you both misunderstand how people make decisions and act. And you both say one thing, yet mean another.

  21. Joe Quatrone, Jr. says:

    This is an interesting post!

  22. Here’s what I think: Being human allows you to pick your moral code. Being theist just means you believe in a creator. Being a religious theist means that you believe the creator expects something from you and the moral code is laid out for you in whatever religious text happens to be yours.

    Being atheist means never having to say you’re sorry to an ultimate power. It allows you to create your own moral code.

    As a Christian and a realist, I believe that any individual’s made-up moral code is far inferior to most religious texts.

    Humans are not basically good. We need to be held to a standard.

    A Christian who adheres to the Christian code can never talk himself into doing evil. That is not to say there are no Christians who perform evil acts. It’s only to say that when they do, they’re falling short of their chosen moral code. Like I said, we’re not basically good. That includes all Christians.

    But an atheist depends on his own experience and conscience.

    So, who’s more likely to do evil? Someone who is trying to live up to God’s expectations (as he understands them), or a guy who has no expectations placed on him?

  23. Terrance H. says:

    As a Christian and a realist, I believe that any individual’s made-up moral code is far inferior to most religious texts.

    I’m having some trouble with this, because the Old Testament directs adherents to kill those who touch the skin of pigs, wear a cloth spun of two fibers, etc…I don’t regard that moral code as superior in anyway. I think it’s rather silly.

  24. Theist morality method: Someone proclaims a moral truth but says a god said it –> Believers forget that someone simply proclaimed it and agree that a god said it.

    Atheist morality method: Someone proclaims a moral truth –> without using a god, sees if he can get others to agree.

    I don’t see a big difference.

  25. Terrance H. says:

    John,

    That’s a nice response. An obvious one, but simple enough. So now I’m obliged to say: O.K. I’ll bite….

    Let’s hear it.

  26. John
    “Christianity (and religious belief generally)… Its adherents find solace in knowing an eternal reward is awaiting them for their faithful devotion.”

    Christians obtain their reward based on the merits of Christ! “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God…” Eph 2:8.
    “Not on the merits of the practitioners lest anyone should boast.” Eph 2:9. Any devotion is purely from a thankful heart for being saved. The motive for doing good deeds is love toward God for saving us!
    Even the good works we do were given by God before the foundation of the world that we may walk in them! Eph 2:10.

    I think you’ve missed it.
    Lamont.

    • Lamont,

      You’ve completely missed it by using ellipsis. By omitting “is sometimes criticized for being nothing more than an emotional crutch of some sort by its critics.” (the complete sentence) you have failed to take into account that what you quoted iss from the critic’s perspective, not mine. If you’re going to challenge my work, I ask that you distinguish between my view and the view that I am arguing against.

  27. John,

    “You’ve completely missed it by using ellipsis. By omitting “is sometimes criticized for being nothing more than an emotional crutch of some sort by its critics.” (the complete sentence) you have failed to take into account that what you quoted iss from the critic’s perspective, not mine.
    If you’re going to challenge my work, I ask that you distinguish between my view and the view that I am arguing against.”

    I find the sentence irrelevant! I find that the view you’re arguing against is a straw man, because, for instance: “Its adherents find solace in knowing an eternal reward is awaiting them for their faithful devotion.”

    Salvation “is” the eternal reward bestowed upon an unworthy sinner by Grace alone, through faith alone (Eph 2). “Faithful devotion” is given to God by those He saved ‘BECAUSE’ of His unmerited favor i.e. Grace!
    I just happen to think that you are allowing the “critic” and the “atheist” reading this particular argument to continue in their ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches concerning salvation. I don’t have a problem w/the premise that unbelievers think that one is saved based on works. Because, I believe (and assume that you do as well), that ‘BY NATURE’ all false religions are based on works, and that’s what sets us apart from the world. I felt that you should have pointed that out.
    Please forgive me if I’m straining Gnat’s.

    Lamont.

    • Lamont

      You’re killing me here. It doesn’t matter if it’s a strawman, I am arguing that to a degree, they are guilty of their own complaint. Whether it is a legitimate complaint against the religious is irrelevant to my overall point.

  28. Anthony Mannucci says:

    This is an excellent post. It may miss the point that, even in an atheist’s world, actions have consequences. These consequences come about because of cause and effect — essentially the laws of physics, which even atheists adhere to. Atheists can claim no absolute moral authority. I call such morality “psyche-based” because ultimately it is based on one’s mental state. The atheist contradiction is believing psyche-based morality is sufficient. It is not, even for atheists. Atheists have trouble admitting that if the appropriate drug were administered to them, they could be made to think that harming children is OK. That is one example of the relative nature of psyche-based morality. Even atheists care more than that.

    Morality is at root based on faith. Faith is essential for a moral world view.
    -Tony
    http://embracetheinfinite.com

  29. Anthony Mannucci says:

    Something else occurs to me after reading this post. It appears that the atheists “win”. What I mean is: they have no burden, but you do. The benefits of having this burden are not clear. Would God merely put a burden on believers, without any benefits?

    There are benefits to following a moral code. This should be clear. A scientific perspective can be found in my book.

    -Tony (embracetheinfinite.com)

    • I see what you mean Tony. The only moral burden Atheists have is a self imposed one. Like being bound by handcuffs while holding a key — you’re only in them voluntarily. But even as you say, there are benefits in the temporal for acting morally, even if not eternally from the Atheist perspective.

      I think though Atheists won’t understand what you are saying. They habitually take this concept to mean they cannot behave unless they believe in God, which is not the point.

      • Anthony Mannucci says:

        John Barron: “I see what you mean Tony. The only moral burden Atheists have is a self imposed one. Like being bound by handcuffs while holding a key — you’re only in them voluntarily. But even as you say, there are benefits in the temporal for acting morally, even if not eternally from the Atheist perspective.”

        Be careful about “selling” religion using only the eternal. This is easily dismissed if one does not believe in an afterlife. I would suggest that religion has benefits in the temporal.

        John Barron: “I think though Atheists won’t understand what you are saying. They habitually take this concept to mean they cannot behave unless they believe in God, which is not the point.”

        Atheists can be as, or more, moral than a believer, but for very different reasons. I suggest that atheists are deluding themselves somewhat on the subject of morality. At some level, they too “believe.”

        Many atheists believe that their moral sense is based on their biology. This is also the scientific perspective, but human life is so much more than that.

        Not even atheists can escape the fact that “actions have consequences”. This is fascinating to me. It is very “temporal” and very scientific. This is why “loose morality” fails. It fails because it inevitably contains the seeds of its own destruction. Following “Treat others as you would have them treat you” imposes a great deal of moral behavior on us. It works, even in the temporal. This was uttered by Christ.

Trackbacks

  1. […] back in October) and second post (his most recent), respectively, are For Goodness Sake and What A Relief. I want to respond to both of these posts, so I will be tackling the first post now and the second […]

  2. […] This will be my second response to fellow blogger John’s two posts For Goodness Sake and What A Relief (note: these two posts were  not necessarily written as a two-part series. I just decided to […]

  3. […] Oscar, has written a response of his own to Sifting Reality‘s post entitled “What a Relief.”  At the end of his post, Oscar has Christopher Hitchens, by the means of a YouTube Video, […]

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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

%d bloggers like this: