The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Atheism impedes climate change action > Comments

Atheism impedes climate change action : Comments

By Robert Martin, published 22/8/2013

I cannot see how atheists can rationally hold the tension between maximisation of opportunity in the present and simultaneously sacrifice for the future.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
What individual Christians and atheists have said or done is totally irrelevant to Martin's argument.

It's a red herring, Rhrosty.

Martin's talking about what arises upon reflection from different worldviews. Where do different views lead?

If a 5 year old tries to play a Beethoven piece and fails miserably, instead being out of key and with mistakes everywhere, does this mean the original Beethoven composition is worthless? Hardly.

Martin's talking about the compositions.
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 22 August 2013 2:07:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But AJ, if atheism is true then your life, indeed everyone’s/everything’s life, is ultimately totally shallow and meaningless. If we have come into being completely unintentionally and for no purpose then it doesn’t matter in the slightest what anyone does or doesn’t do.

You can resort to name-calling with references to “psychopaths” but it doesn’t get you anywhere. People are just different, and no one can be meaningfully called wrong or bad, even if they do “destroy things for their own gain, and to the detriment of others”.

There is no such thing as a positive legacy to leave behind. Things are just what they happen to be and no one state of things is any better or worse than any other. Of course you personally may happen to prefer one state of things over another, but why should anyone care what you prefer?
Posted by JP, Thursday, 22 August 2013 3:14:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In this article Martin was speaking in absolutes by spelling out his view of the consequences of atheism in such strong terms. Perhaps this was intended to open up a conversation? Maybe it contributed to getting his article published?

It seems to me that….

1. Atheism is likely to lead to naturalism. Some philosophers of religion actually consider them so close as to be indistinguishable, possibly because there’s such a lack of views out there held by atheists, other than naturalism.

2. Naturalism provides no reason to believe in the concept of objective purpose, but does provide reason to think that there is no objective purpose. In this context (climate change), naturalism fails to provide reason or motivation for acting towards an altruistic goal that goes far beyond ourselves, and in fact does provide reason or motivation for not acting towards such altruistic goals.

However Christianity does give us objective purpose in this context and motivation to act, as Martin outlined. So here is a weaker claim than Martin has made in his essay, but one that appears undoubtedly true to me: Christianity gives more reason for an adherent to care about future generations and the world’s wellbeing than naturalistic atheism does.
Posted by Trav, Thursday, 22 August 2013 3:19:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But JP, I’ve already discredited everything you just said in our previous discussions. A new thread isn’t a reset switch for reality.

Here are a couple of my favourites: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14934#257586, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13321#230298.

<<You can resort to name-calling with references to “psychopaths” but it doesn’t get you anywhere.>>

Referring to psychopaths as such is not name-calling. Please look-up the definition of name-calling. I have “resorted” to nothing.

I'll say again, that if you think we need a god for a sense purpose or morality, then you have sacrificed your humanity in deference to your god.

Trav,

<<…Martin was speaking in absolutes by spelling out his view of the consequences of atheism in such strong terms. Perhaps this was intended to open up a conversation? Maybe it contributed to getting his article published?>>

Or maybe it’s because that’s how so many Christians think. It never ceases to amaze me how often the notion of absolute certainty is applied to what I say whenever someone tries to rebut it.

<<Atheism is likely to lead to naturalism.>>

Not necessarily. Think of how many atheists take astrology and any new-age woo seriously.

<<Some philosophers of religion actually consider them so close as to be indistinguishable, possibly because there’s such a lack of views out there held by atheists, other than naturalism.>>

Or possibly because they’re setting up a strawman.

<<Naturalism provides no reason to believe in the concept of objective purpose, but does provide reason to think that there is no objective purpose. In this context (climate change), naturalism fails to provide reason or motivation for acting towards an altruistic goal that goes far beyond ourselves, and in fact does provide reason or motivation for not acting towards such altruistic goals.>>

Along with the questions I posed in my last response, another good question here would be “Why should it?” But given the points I’ve just made, this is pretty much irrelevant anyway. It also ignores the last paragraph of my last post.

<<Christianity gives more reason for an adherent to care about future generations and the world’s wellbeing than naturalistic atheism does.>>

As does this.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 22 August 2013 4:14:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP,

Basically the article is another variation on the assertion that morality is impossible without belief in the supernatural.

"But AJ, if atheism is true then your life, indeed everyone’s/everything’s life, is ultimately totally shallow and meaningless. If we have come into being completely unintentionally and for no purpose then it doesn’t matter in the slightest what anyone does or doesn’t do."

Not necessarily, we can either find meaning by inventing a creator or by using our intelligence to find meaning in the natural world.

Christians seem to be totally unaware of the influences of the secular world on their beliefs-

For example, until the late 18th century slavery was acceptable to most Christians, the factor that ended slavery was not Christianity itself, but the influence of Enlightenment values on Christians. The earliest Christians regarded slavery as natural and the subjugation of women as divinely ordained and were hostile to most Greco-Roman culture. If modern Christians are concerned about AGW it's as a result of modern secular science, not Christian doctrine.

Statistically, most climatologists working in the field today are likely to be either atheists or agnostics, why did that singular group of "nihilists" bother to express their alarm if they weren't motivated by altruistic concerns?
Posted by mac, Thursday, 22 August 2013 4:37:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac – no one denies that atheists cannot and do not make up their own notions of what is right and wrong and then call this “morality”. The problem for atheists is, what to do when atheists disagree with each other about what behaviours to call right and wrong. There is no objective standard for them to measure their respective opinions/preferences against. One atheist’s opinion/preference is as good or bad as any other’s. You may consider an atheist rapist to be acting wrongly while he may regard his behaviour as being perfectly acceptable. And really that is as far as you can go.

The same goes with making up meaning. Of course an atheist can say that he can make up some meaning for his existence but when there is a clash of “meanings” there is no way to resolve things. One atheist may find it fits within their framework of meaning to be able to ruthlessly exploit the rainforest while another finds meaning in preserving it. On what basis can you say that one should trump the other?
Posted by JP, Thursday, 22 August 2013 5:38:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy